Oxford Theology and Religion

Monographs

Editorial Committee

d. acharya m. n. a. bockmuehl

m. j. edwards p. s. fiddes

s. r. i. foot h. najman

g. ward

Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa

Human Suffering and Divine Play

Gopal K. Gupta

image

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It

furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,

and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark

of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries

The moral rights of the author have been asserted

First Edition published in 2020

Impression: 1

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the

prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly

permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate

reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction

outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,

Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose

this same condition on any acquirer

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Data available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020946425

ISBN 978–0–19–885699–3

ebook ISBN 978–0–19–259906–3

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for

information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials

contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

To my parents, who

introduced me to Krishna

Preface and Acknowledgements

There is no topic more pervasive throughout Indian philosophy than that of

māyā. Māyā as a concept is multivalent, foundational, and complex, its

oldest referents being in the

Ṛ

g-veda. This book explores māyā’s rich

conceptual history, and then focuses on the highly developed theology of

māyā found in the Sanskrit Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

The Bhāgavata is one of the most highly regarded and variegated of Hindu

sacred texts due to its coherent narrative structure, its high poetic quality, its

philosophical sophistication, and its extensive development of bhakti

theology. As such, this work of over 14,000 Sanskrit verses ranks, along

with the Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata, as central to the contemporary

Hindu corpus of sacred texts in the Sanskrit language. As a work in the

literary language of the Brahmins, the Bhāgavata has enjoyed considerable

commentarial attention (with 81 extant commentaries), yet it has also

permeated popular Hinduism, both in India and diaspora communities,

through manifold interpretations in temple liturgy and architecture, ritual

recitations, dance, drama, and more recently, film. All major vernacular

languages of India have renditions of the Bhāgavata, which often become

regional classics in their own right.

The Bhāgavata presents māyā as a powerful creative force that not only

initially draws the soul closer to God, but also enhances the ultimate

relationship between them. The most important and unique feature of the

Bhāgavata is its emphasis on spontaneous devotion (bhakti) directed toward

Kṛṣṇa or Vịṣṇu by immersing the mind and senses in him. This

spontaneous bhakti is facilitated by yoga-māyā’s power, because in the

bhakti-yoga of the Bhāgavata, in loving play, both the devotee and God

himself forget God’s majesty. Yoga-māyā is the power that effects this

amnesia, thus arranging for the experience of intimate love between Kṛṣṇa

and his devotee. In this context, māyā serves not as the power of delusion,

but rather as the power that reconnects finite souls with the divine play of

Kṛṣṇa. Instead of forgetting God, the souls now forget that he is God, so

that they may play their role in relationship with him. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa

himself voluntarily submits to the power of yoga-māyā, losing himself in

his divine drama, thus increasing the intensity and intimacy of his yoga.

Māyā’s scope and influence in the Bhāgavata are far-reaching—māyā is the

world and the means by which God creates the world, she is the power that

deludes living beings and ensorcells them in the phenomenal world, and she

is the facilitator of God’s play, paradoxically revealing him to his devotees

by concealing some aspects of his identity such as his majesty. While

Vedānta philosophy typically sees māyā only as a negative force, the

Bhāgavata affirms that māyā also has a positive role, for in both the

conditioned and liberated states, māyā is meant to ultimately draw living

beings toward Kṛṣṇa and intensify their devotion for him. In the

Bhāgavata, māyā is often identified as the divine feminine, and women are

typically identified as māyā. This book examines māyā’s place in the text’s

discussions on gender and māyā’s role in the Bhāgavata’s narratives, paying

special attention to māyā’s relationship with other key concepts in the text,

such as suffering (du

ḥ

kha), devotion (bhakti), and play (līlā).

I have had the good fortune of having many skilled teachers and mentors in

my twelve years of writing this book. I am very grateful to my supervisor at

the University of Oxford, Professor Gavin Flood, who gave me unremitting

inspiration and invaluable guidance throughout the research and writing

process. His caring hand was instrumental in leading this manuscript to

publication. Many other scholars gave direction and timely advice: Kenneth

Valpey, the late Professor Nrsimhacarya, the late Professor John H. Brooke,

Patrick Olivelle, John Hawley, Shashiprabha Kumar, and Graham Schweig.

Professor Schweig, as a teacher, friend, and mentor, has supported and

encouraged me more than I could ever give him credit for here. Indeed, it

was after reading Schweig’s captivating book, Dance of Divine Love, that I

decided to focus my research on māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa. I would

like to thank him profusely for writing such an insightful and beautiful

foreword for this book.

A special thank you to my supportive Oxford-England community:

Shaunaka Rishi, Keshava, Rembert, Anuradha, Abhishek, Lal Krishna,

Shyama, Judit, Vrindavan, and Varsana. I am deeply indebted to all these

individuals who cared for me as friends and mentors throughout my

academic studies.

My brother, Ravi Gupta, painstakingly read through earlier versions of the

manuscript and offered many helpful suggestions. His invaluable input was

instrumental in the development and completion of this work, for which I

am very grateful.

This work would not have seen the light of day without the fine tuning and

final editing of Allan Andersson, a dear friend, guide and editor, to whom I

owe an enduring debt of gratitude. Allan provided me invaluable personal

and professional guidance, taught me a great deal about good writing, and

gave me valuable insight into the multifaceted philosophy and theology of

the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

My first Sanskrit teacher, Gary Thomas, instilled in me a love for the

Sanskrit language by his enthusiasm, expertise and patient instruction. Gary

also carefully edited the first draft of this book and offered helpful

suggestions, for which I am thankful.

My debt is nowhere deeper in the pursuit of this book than the members of

my family. I would like to thank my mother and father, Aruddha and Arun

Gupta, and my wife, Devi, and our daughter and son, Sita and Balaram,

whose love and guidance are with me in whatever I pursue and who have

cared for me in every possible way.

I would like to thank my teachers in the Bhāgavata traditions who have

helped me appreciate the Bhāgavata’s multifaceted messages: A. C.

Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Gopal Krishna Goswami, Anuttama

Dasa, Steven J. Rosen, and Ganapati Swami.

At Oxford University Press I would like to thank my copyeditor Martin

Noble for his efficiency and keen eye for detail, and for being so gracious to

work with, and Markcus Sandanraj at SPi Global, who project managed the

book so capably. I would like to thank Tom Perridge, John Smallman,

Henry Clark, Hannah Chippendale, Rossinna Ippolito, Prof. Diarmaid

Macculloch and Prof. Graham Ward, all of whom helped in the publication

process.

I am grateful to several institutions for their financial help: The Clarendon

Scholarship of the Theology Faculty at Oxford University, the Cyril and

Philis Long doctoral scholarship of the Queen’s College at Oxford

University, the Jiva Goswami Scholarship of the Oxford Center for Hindu

Studies, and a grant from the College of Idaho for summer research and

writing.

I am very grateful to my colleagues at the Department of Philosophy and

Religion at the University of Evansville, in Indiana, USA. They provided

me the academic community and place to complete this book. I am grateful

to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during this and

other related projects.

Introduction

“What Sort of Thing Is the

Bhāgavata?”

In 1869, when India was still firmly in the grip of British rule, Bhaktivinode

Thakur (1883–1914 ce), a prolific Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava author, poet, and

philosopher, penned an English-language essay aimed at persuading

educated Hindus, thoughtful Britishers, and dedicated Christians to view the

Bhāgavata Purāṇa with an open and unbiased mind. To this end, he posed a

rhetorical question that stands at the very heart of the book you are about to

read:

‘What sort of thing is the Bhāgavata?’, asks the European gentlemen newly

arrived in India. His companion tells him with a serene look that the

Bhāgavata is a book which his Oriya bearer daily reads in the evening to a

number of hearers. It contains a jargon of unintelligible and savage

literature of those men who paint their noses with some sort of earth or

sandal, and wear beads all over their bodies in order to procure salvation for

themselves.

Another of his companions, who has traveled a little in the interior, would

immediately contradict him and say that the Bhāgavata is a Sanskrit work

claimed by a sect of men, the Goswamis, who give mantras, like the Pope

of Italy, to the common people of Bengal, and pardon their sins on payment

of gold enough to defray their social expenses …

A young Bengal, chained up in English thoughts and ideas, and wholly

ignorant of the [pre-Muslim] history of his own country, will add one more

explanation by saying that the Bhāgavata is a book containing an account of

the life of Krishna, who was an ambitious and an immoral man! This is all

that he could gather from his grandmother while yet he did not go to

school!

Thus the Great Bhāgavata ever remains unknown to the foreigners like the

elephant of the six blind who caught hold of the several parts of the body of

the beast!1

In an attempt to avoid these sorts of narrow-minded conclusions and to

obtain a glimpse of that “elephant” in its entire, this book intends to shine a

good deal of scholarly, analytical, and commentarial light on the matter of

the Bhāgavata Purāṇa—to draw out its theological, philosophical and

ontological underpinnings, to explicate its polymorphic monotheistic

conception of God, and to anticipate and dispel potential misunderstandings

of key points. To accomplish this, we will examine the Bhāgavata’s various

usages and understandings of a central notion in Indic thought, described by

the eminent Sanskritist Daniel Ingalls as “one of the most beautiful

concepts in the history of religion.”2 It is the concept māyā, here meaning

the all-purpose manifold energy (or power) of “Bhagavān,” one of the

Bhāgavata’s various names for God.

This introduction will, first, discuss the Bhāgavata’s place among India’s

extensive collection of Sanskrit texts, second, explain why the Bhāgavata’s

conception of māyā has been selected to serve as the focal point of this

book, third, explore the notion of narrative as a theological lens, and finally,

say a word or two about the sources that have been selected to inform our

exposition of the Bhāgavata’s thought.

What Is the Bhāgavata?

The variegated array of Sanskrit texts that originate from South Asia likely

constitutes Indic civilization’s most unique, enduring, and influential

contribution to world culture—a contribution the roots of which extend

back to the most ancient of civilizational times. To name only the most

prominent among these literatures, there are the four Vedas, the Upaniṣads,

the Vedānta-sūtras, the epics Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata (the latter of
which contains the renowned Bhagavad-gītā), and the eighteen principle
Purāṇas, among which we find the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, a work of some
14,000 verses that has had a uniquely powerful impact on Indic culture,
religion, and thought.
To date, most studies of the Purāṇas (including the Bhāgavata Purāṇa) have
focused on the sociocultural and/or narrational dimension of these texts
while ignoring their extensive religio-philosophical content. The remainder
largely consist of general overviews such as Wilson’s introduction to the
Vi
ṣṇ
u Purā
ṇ
a (1961),3 Winternitz’s study of the Purāṇas in The History of
Indian Literature (1971),4 Ludo Rocher’s The Purā
ṇ
as (1988),5 and
Doniger’s Purā
ṇ
a Perennis (1993).6 In this regard, Greg Bailey has
identified two types of overviews of Purāṇic literature: “those that attempt
to give both a description of the characteristics of the genre and brief
glosses of the texts that are part of it, and those that simply restrict
themselves to defining the genre as such.”7 Apart from these, there have
been a number of useful translations of specific Purāṇas, an early example
of which is Wilson’s translation of the Vi
ṣṇ
u Purā
ṇ
a (1961).8 To this one
can add Brown’s more recent study of the Devi Bhāgavata9 as well as an
ongoing project aimed at producing a critical edition of the Skanda
Purāṇa.10
Among all the Purāṇic literatures, however, it is the Bhāgavata Purāṇa that
has been most influential, having featured prominently in the Western
encounter with Hinduism since at least the mid-nineteenth century. The
work’s earliest translation into a European tongue was conducted by
Eugene Burnouf, who, between 1840 and 1847, published the original
Sanskrit with French translation in three folio volumes.11 Renewed
recognition of the Bhāgavata’s status as a world literature as well as its
ongoing relevance as a living sacred text has inspired several recent
academic publications aimed at introducing the text to a broader scholarly
readership. Examples include Edwin Bryant’s translation of the Bhāgavata’s
tenth book,12 Graham Schweig’s study of the tenth book’s rāsa-līlā
chapters,13 and Rick Jarow’s study of the Bhāgavata’s “death narratives.”14
While much of this scholarship is focused on the tenth book, the highly

popular account of Kṛsṇa’s incarnation and activities, the other eleven

books contain discourses, narratives, and prayers that are also worthy of

scholarly attention. An aim of this book is to broaden our understanding by

examining not only the tenth book, but also those that have been thus far

overlooked, thus making our presentation more representative of the

Bhāgavata as a whole. Another aim is to allow the Bhāgavata to speak for

and of itself, while we also rely upon both scholarly and traditional

interpretative sources to guide our way. What, then, does the Bhāgavata say

about itself?

From the very beginning, in Book 1, the Bhāgavata declares itself to be the

ripened fruit of the tree of Vedic knowledge—the highest and most

satisfying among the entire collection of Sanskrit works—and entreats its

readers to deeply and repeatedly drink of its nectarine juice (its essential

truth) until they are carried from their mortal frames.15 What is that

essential truth, that vision of reality, of which the Bhāgavata speaks? It is a

bold vision indeed—one that claims to provide reasonable explanations as

to: (1) the nature, form, and activities of the supreme being (the complete

whole, the cause of all causes, the origin of all); (2) the nature and function

of his eternal emanations (we living beings); (3) the nature of both absolute

and temporal existence; (4) the nature of prema (selfless love of God) as

opposed to kāmā (selfish personal desire); and, so on.

The Bhāgavata’s philosophical content is solidly grounded in the classical

understandings of both Vedānta and Sāṁkhya, and its overarching

theological aim is to promote unalloyed devotion to Kṛṣṇa (or God) as the

highest and most satisfying human occupation. All these matters and more

are thoroughly discussed throughout the Bhāgavata, and will be touched

upon in this book as well.

This having been said, it is also important to note that the Bhāgavata is not

a systematic work in the manner of the Sāṅkhya-kārikā or Yoga-sūtras, nor

is it structured and linear in fashion as are these works. Rather it weaves its

theological discourse through its narratives, often discussing various themes

at the same time. The Bhāgavata’s discourse sometimes moves like a spiral,

discussing a theological topic repeatedly, but each time with a bit more

depth or in a different context. At other times, it moves like a neural

network, in which one theological idea leads to another with no apparent

framework other than the connections between the ideas themselves.

And yet, although the Bhāgavata does not have a clear structure, it would be

largely incorrect to characterize it as an unsystematic work since it contains

a central theme that it develops throughout—i.e., that the highest yoga is

active loving exchange (bhakti) directed toward Kṛṣṇa (God). As Ravi

Gupta and Kenneth Valpey have noted in the introduction to their

Bhāgavata reader: “The Bhāgavata’s teaching style … [is] relentlessly

focused. Both the dialogical method and careful structure serve to usher the

student into realizing a message that resonates throughout the text—namely,

that bhakti for Kṛṣṇa is the highest goal, one that trumps the limitations of

dharma, overcomes human weakness, and leads to liberation from

suffering.”16

In pursuit of this central theme, the Bhāgavata, at various places, draws

from many of the narratives found in the Ṛg Veda, from pañcarātra and

tantric texts, and from all six traditional schools of Indic philosophy (i.e.,

vaiśe

ṣ

ika, nyāya, yoga, sā

ṁ

khya, mīmā

ṁ

sā, and vedānta). Most notably, it

draws from the Mahābhārata, and particularly the Bhagavad-gītā, in its

acceptance of Kṛṣṇa as the supreme deity. But the Bhāgavata not only

draws from these philosophical, epical, and ritual traditions, it builds upon

them as well, forming what Smith calls a cumulative tradition. Thus, to

classify the Bhāgavata only as a philosophical or a theological or a ritual

text would be delimiting and inaccurate.17 Moreover, any significant study

of the Bhāgavata’s theology must include a study of its narratives, which

can be likened to a lens through which the work’s theology is revealed.

Unlike most previous Bhāgavata studies, this book makes extensive use of

these narratives.

Apart from its significance as a work of theology and philosophy, the

Bhāgavata has been recognized as the “literary Purāṇa”18 for the

outstanding beauty of its language and poetic style, which are said to be on

a par with the best that Sanskrit literature has to offer. This is certainly one

of the reasons that the Bhāgavata has inspired “more derivative literature,

poetry, drama, dance, theatre, and art than any other text in the history of

Sanskrit literature, with the possible exception of the Rāmāyaṇa.”19 It

serves as the basis for the understandings, practices, and observances of

several major North Indian bhakti movements and permeates popular Hindu

culture through its use in liturgy, ritual, recitation, temple architecture, and

so on.20 All of the above affords only a superficial hint regarding “what sort

of thing is the Bhāgavata?” In the remaining chapters of this book, we will

attempt to plumb just a small portion of the Bhāgavata’s depths. And to do

so in an organized and consistent way, we will center our discussion around

one of the Bhāgavata’s most significant and versatile themes: māyā—a

Sanskrit term that has many meanings, but which in the Bhāgavata

primarily refers to the multi-purpose energy, potency, or power of God.

Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa

The nineteenth-century German philosopher Paul Deussen famously stated

that there is no doctrine more central to Indian thought than that of māyā.21

Going a step further, the eminent Sanskritist Daniel Ingalls called māyā

“one of the most beautiful concepts in the history of religion.”22 Although

māyā has a significant presence in Indian sacred literature, the concept has

received sparse academic attention, most of which has focused on

Śaṅkara’s nondual understanding of māyā as “illusion” or “appearance.”

The term māyā, however, has held a variety of meanings; and, in the

Bhāgavata, māyā plays a far more complex, manifold, and profound role

than is indicated by the Śaṅkara school.

A major aim of this book is to provide an overview of māyā’s rich

conceptual history, beginning with the term’s usage in the Rgveda, the

oldest of India’s sacred texts, and continuing with its usage in the

Upaniṣads, the Mahābhārata (including the Bhagavad-gītā), and Śaṅkara’s

nondualist Śārīraka-bhāṣya (all discussed in Chapter 2). It then proceeds to

focus on the highly developed conception of māyā found within the

Bhāgavata itself, which describes māyā’s pivotal role in relation to three

fundamental aspects of reality: (1) the temporal realm (the perceivable

material sphere); (2) the conditioned living beings (the “deluded” selves

that reside in the temporal realm); and (3) the absolute realm (where Kṛṣṇa

and his unalloyed devotees are said to eternally reside).

Here it is important to note that while Vedānta philosophy often conceives
of māyā as a negative, deluding force, the Bhāgavata most often affirms just
the opposite: in relation to the temporal realm, māyā is said to be that
energy by which Kṛṣṇa manifests the elements and transforms them into
the plurality of universes, bodies, senses, and minds that constitute the
phenomenal world (discussed in Chapter 3); in relation to the deluded living
beings, māyā’s illusioning is said to be for the ultimate upliftment and
liberation of those that she has bound to the cycle of birth and death
(discussed in Chapter 4); and in relation to the absolute realm, māyā is said
to serve as a facilitator and enhancer of the exchange of unalloyed bhakti
between Kṛṣṇa and his most intimate devotees (discussed in Chapter 5).
While the Bhāgavata discusses other key topics (e.g., bhakti, līlā, and
sa
ṁ
sāra), it will be shown that these theological ideas are also integrally
connected to the Bhāgavata’s rich conception of māyā.
As previously noted, both traditional and modern scholars of Indic thought
have often presented māyā as a deluding force that leads individual selves
away from God, miring them more deeply in temporal existence. In
contrast, the Bhāgavata (in both its sā
ṁ
khya philosophy and its k
ṛṣṇ
a-līlā
narratives) presents māyā as a powerful creative force that ultimately draws
all souls toward God and facilitates their relationship with him. In this
characterization of māyā, the Bhāgavata presents a perspective on women
that is contrary to much of conservative Hindu thought (discussed in
Chapter 6) as well as a unique understanding of the problem of human
suffering (discussed in Chapter 7) and the attainment of ultimate liberation
(discussed in Chapter 8).
The Bhāgavata traces its authorship to Vyāsa and its content to his
meditative vision, which forms the foundation and inspiration for the
Purāṇa. The text’s doctrine of māyā is extensive and complex, and it is
essential to the Purāṇa’s theology. Indeed, māyā’s extensive role is
mentioned at the very outset of the Purāṇa, in its description of the above
referenced meditative vision, which will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter
3.23 Another of the Bhāgavata’s interesting aspects concerns the observation
that it is not only a Vedānta text (the standard view), but a Sāṁkhya text as
well. This will be primarily demonstrated in Chapter 3, where we compare
the Bhāgavata’s Sāṁkhya system to that of classical Sāṁkhya, specifically

with regard to such standard Sāṁkhya categories as puru

ṣ

a (the individual

self), prak

ṛ

ti (the physical world), aha

ṁ

kāra (false identification), the

ṇ

as (qualitative energies), the 23 elements, and so forth.

The Bhāgavata’s Narratives as a

Theological Lens

Any significant study of the Bhāgavata’s theology must include a study of

its narratives, for the Purāṇa’s narratives are a lens through which to study

its theology. This book makes extensive use of these narratives, which are

multifaceted, and thus require a multifaceted approach to their critical

analysis. We begin here by asking whether the work contains one particular

overarching narrative (or framing story), and answering this question in the

affirmative.

The Bhāgavata’s framing story begins where the Mahābhārata leaves off.

King Parīkṣit, the grandson of Arjuna, is cursed by the son of a brāhma

ṇ

to die in seven days. Upon receiving the news, the king, who is a great

devotee of Kṛṣṇa, actually welcomes the curse as a perfect opportunity to

end all worldly affairs and concentrate on spiritual advancement.

Immediately he renounces his kingship, all his worldly possessions, and

even his most intimate familial ties, and makes his way to the Ganges,

firmly determined to focus his attention on God while fasting until death.

At that time, hearing of the king’s circumstance and extraordinary vow, the

greatest sages of the universe transport themselves to that shore so as to

associate with this foremost devotee of Kṛṣṇa until he returns to his Lord’s

eternal abode. After humbly acknowledging the kind presence of these

advanced personages, the king begins making spiritual inquires when,

suddenly, a final visitor arrives. It is Śuka-deva, the fully enlightened

teenage son of Vyāsa, who is respectfully greeted by all, due to his exalted

spiritual status, and is then encouraged to place himself on the seat of honor

as the assembly’s prime speaker—the one chosen among them to respond to

the questions of the king.

Parīkṣit bows before Śuka-deva with folded hands and inquires as to the

way of perfection for all human beings, and especially for those that are

about to die (Figure 1.1): “What should one hear, chant, remember, and

worship,” asks the king, “and what things should one eschew?”24 Being

very much pleased by the king’s questions, the spiritually gifted son of

Vyāsa, who is fully conversant with the principles of religion, begins to

reply, leading to a series of questions and answers that fully occupies the

remaining seven days of the king’s life. That series of questions and

answers will lead to another, and another, and yet another layer of questions

and answers, until those layers grow to become the book that is the subject

of this inquiry—the book known as the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

image

Figure 1.1 Parīkṣit bows before Śuka-deva and inquires as to the way of

perfection for all human beings, and especially for those that are about to

die.

A secondary but equally important discourse takes place between Sūta and

the sages of Naimiṣāraṇya. Sūta had been present on the bank of the

Ganges during the original discourse between King Parīkṣit and Śuka-deva,

and due to his photographic memory (a common feature of ancient Indic

sages) he is able to repeat the entirety of that discourse verbatim as a way of

ameliorating the negative effects of Kali-yuga, the present “dark age of

quarrel and hypocrisy.”25

Apart from these two framing conversations, there is no other narrative that

ties together the entire Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which consists of twelve books

(or “cantos”). Each book focuses on a variety of narratives, discourses, and

prayers that center around various avatāras (e.g., Kṛṣṇa, Viṣṇu, Kapila,

Varāha, Nṛsiṁha, etc.) and their devotees. The exception is the tenth book,

which is exclusively focused on Kṛṣṇa’s līlās and extraordinary deeds. The

Bhāgavata’s characteristic narrative style can be best described as layered,

in the sense that one narrative embeds (or is embedded by) another, which,

in its turn, embeds (or is embedded by) a third, and so on. Sūta, for

example, conveys a particular narrative that had been conveyed by Śuka-

deva to King Parīkṣit, which had been previously conveyed by the sage

Maitreya to Vidura, which had been originally conveyed by Kṛṣṇa to his

intimate friend and advisor Uddhava. While a comprehensive study of the

Bhāgavata’s complex array of narratives is beyond the scope of this book, at

least some of the more prominent tales will be detailed and assessed in

terms of the theological and philosophical meanings they impart—

meanings that are brought into sharp focus through the Bhāgavata’s rich

storytelling lens.

A Word about Sources

The Bhāgavata has been disseminated by means of a longstanding

commentarial tradition that has interpreted the text for application in a

number of extant religious communities. Although a primary goal of this

book is to allow the Bhāgavata to speak for and of itself, references to both

Western scholarship and Vaiṣṇava interpretative traditions were necessary,

and in fact have greatly enhanced our discussion and analysis of key

philosophical, ontological, and theological points. The specific aim of this

section is to delineate this book’s Vaiṣṇava commentarial sources, as our

choices were limited by the availability of relevant material.

In his book, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, Edwin Bryant

characterizes the Bhāgavata as an “unambiguously Vaiṣṇava Purāṇa,”26

and we would add that it is unambiguously focused on Kṛṣṇa, who is

presented as the cause of all causes, the original form of God. What is the

significance and what are the implications of this brand of Kṛṣṇa-centered

monotheism? To answer this question will require a very brief history of

Vedānta, the most prominent among all the primary schools of thought in

Indian history. We can begin by defining the term.

Vedānta (literally, “the end of the Vedas”) is one of the six orthodox schools

of Indic thought, wherein the term generally refers to the philosophy of the

Upaniṣads and the schools of interpretation that developed from these most

ancient texts. In their conceptualizations, these interpretative schools posit

differing views regarding the relationship between three ontological

categories: brahman (the ultimate metaphysical reality); ātman (the

individual self, or soul); and, prak

ṛ

ti (the perceivable world of transient

material form). And in doing so, they often fall into two major divisions of

thought. The first is the monistic (advaita) school, which was found by

Śaṅkara and propagated throughout the centuries by various branches of

followers; and the second is the Vaiṣṇava personalist school, which, over

the centuries, has propagated a variety of dualistic or nondualist theories

regarding the relationship between brahman, ātman, and prak

ṛ

ti (see

Chapter 2).

Among the Vaiṣṇava personalists, several of the more prominent schools

are as follows: the viśi

ṣṭ

ādvaita school developed by Ramanuja (c. 1017–

1137), the founder of the Śrī Sampradāya, whose ontology largely relies

upon the authority of the Viṣṇu Purāṇa (similar in content to the

Bhāgavata); the dvaita school developed by Madhva (c. 1238–1317), the

founder of the Brahmā Sampradāya, who not only studied the Bhāgavata,

but also commented on it in his Bhāgavata-tatparya;27 the śuddhādvaita

school developed by Vallabha (1479–1531), who considered himself a

follower of Viṣṇu Svāmī’s Rudra Sampradāya; and finally, the acintya-

bheda-abheda school developed by Caitanya (c. 1486–1534), who aligned

himself with Madhva’s Brahmā Sampradāya, largely due to Madhva’s

vehement opposition to monism and his focus on Kṛṣṇa as opposed to

Viṣṇu. Let us now see how this relates to extant commentaries on the

Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

There are said to be eighteen primary Purāṇas, among which the Bhāgavata

Purāṇa is one. However, most of these Purāṇas have never been subject to

systematic commentarial analysis, while the remaining few, such as the

Viṣṇu Purāṇa, have been commented upon only once or twice. As one

might suspect or already know, the exception is the Bhāgavata Purāṇa, for

which there are 81 extant commentaries (and many more, of which only the

names have survived).28 The reasons for this can be found more within than

outside the Vaiṣṇava personalist traditions, since it has been the Vaiṣṇavas

themselves that have generated almost all of these commentaries. We here

list three of the more prominent reasons for this singular focus: (1) unlike

other Purāṇas, the Bhāgavata identifies Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu, as the supreme

being—a perspective that aligns with the understandings of the above

described Vaiṣṇava Sampradāyas, especially those that have generated the

most numerous and important commentaries on the text; (2) the

Bhāgavata’s presentation of this Kṛṣṇa-centered form of monotheism is of

a highly sophisticated nature and is bolstered by philosophical explanations

and arguments; and, (3) the Bhāgavata claims that its content represents the

cream or essence of Vedāntic knowledge. Now, a word about extant

Bhāgavata commentaries.

Two schools of Vedāntic thought have been mentioned above, the first of

which is Śaṅkara’s nondualist (advaita) school. While extremely influential

in the history of Indic philosophy, this school can be set aside when it

comes to the Bhāgavata since there are virtually no monist commentaries on

a work which posits a conception of Brahman that is antithetical to the

monist view. This leaves the commentaries of the Vaiṣṇava Personalists,

the oldest of which are Madhva’s (1238–1317 ce) Bhāgavata-tātparya-

nir

ṇ

aya29 and Śrīdhara Svāmi’s Bhāvārtha-bodhinī (1325 ce).30 Both are

works of the high middle ages, yet of the two, Śrīdhara Svāmi’s

commentary has become the most known and influential, largely because

Caitanya’s renaissance acintya-bheda-abheda school accepted it as most

authoritative, and he and his followers referred to it extensively in their own

teachings and writings.

Here a word of clarification regarding Śrīdhara Svāmi’s position is in order.

Many modern scholars and historians have suggested, in this regard, that

Śridhara Svāmī may have come from the monist tradition and then later

converted to Vaiṣṇavism, becoming a member of Viṣṇu Svāmī’s Rudra-

sampradāya. This seems to be affirmed by his commentaries, which reflect

a philosophic perspective that is in keeping more with a bheda-abheda than

an advaita view of reality.

Apart from the high medieval commentaries of Madhva and Śrīdhara

Svāmī, there is Vallabha’s (1479–1531 ce) Subodhini, a renaissance

Bhāgavata commentary, of which only books 1, 2, 3, and 10 are available.

After this, the most well-known and readily accessible Bhāgavata

commentaries (and treatises) were almost exclusively authored by members

of the Caitanya tradition (the “Gauḍīya” Vaiṣṇavas), many of whom were

from the region of Bengal. Along with Śrīdhara Svāmi’s commentary, those

are the ones that have been most relied upon in this book. They are as

follows: (1) Rūpa Gosvāmī’s (1489–1564 ce) treatise, Bhakti-rasām

ṛ

ta-

sindhu; (2) Sanātana Gosvāmī’s (1488–1558 ce) tenth book Bhāgavata

commentary, Daśama-tippani; (3) Jīva Gosvāmī’s (1513–1596 ce)

Bhāgavata commentary, Krama-sandarbha; (4) Viśvanātha Cakravartī

Ṭhākura’s (1626–1708 ce) Bhāgavata commentary, Sārārtha-Darśinī, one

of the most extensive and detailed of the available commentaries; (5)

Bhaktivinode Thakur’s (1883–1914 ce) English-language treatise, The

Bhāgavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology; and (6) A. C.

Bhaktivedānta’s (1896–1977 ce) English-language translations of both the

Bhāgavata and the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (authored by Kṛṣṇa dasa Kavirāja,

1496–1588 ce), both of which include extensive commentaries (or

purports). Among these, Viśvanātha’s commentary has been particularly

relied upon because it contains numerous interesting discussions on the

Bhāgavata’s various notions of māyā, and especially yoga-māyā.

In closing, we should mention one relatively unique feature of this book. To

date, much of Western scholarship has focused on Śrīdhara Svāmi’s

Bhāgavata commentary to the neglect of the more recent Gauḍīya

Vaiṣṇava commentaries, largely because Śrīdhara’s commentary was

thought to reflect the popular monist understanding of Indic philosophy. By

introducing these various Vaiṣṇava personalist commentaries and treatises,

this book aims to redress this seeming imbalance.

Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal

K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).

1 Bhaktivinode Thakur, The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its

Theology (Guardian of Devotion Press 1985).

2 Daniel H. H. Ingalls, “Foreword,” in Noel Sheth, The Divinity of Krishna

(New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1984), xii.

3 H. H. Wilson, Kanhaiyalala Josi, and Vyasa, Sri Visnupuranam, 1st ed.,

Parimal Sanskrit Series (Delhi: Parimal Publications, reprint 2002).

4 M. Winternitz, A History of Indian Literature, 2 vols. (New York: Russell

& Russell, 1971).

5 J. A. B. van Buitenen and Ludo Rocher, Studies in Indian Literature and
Philosophy: Collected Articles of J.A.B. Van Buitenen (Delhi: American
Institute of Indian Studies: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988).
6 Wendy Doniger, Purana Perennis: Reciprocity and Transformation in
Hindu and Jaina Texts (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press,
1993).
7 Greg Bailey, “Puranas,” Oxford University Press,
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-
9780195399318/obo-9780195399318-0043.xml#firstMatch.
8 Wilson, Josi, and Vyasa, Sri Visnupuranam.
9 Cheever Mackenzie Brown, The Triumph of the Goddess: The Canonical
Models and Theological Visions of the Devi-Bhagavata Purana, Suny
Series in Hindu Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1990).
10 R. Adriaensen, Hans Bakker, and H. Isaacson, The Skandapurana,
Supplement to Groningen Oriental Studies (Groningen: E. Forsten, 1998).
Hans Bakker, Origin and Growth of the Puranic Text Corpus: With Special
Reference to the Skandapurana, 1st Indian ed., Papers of the 12th World
Sanskrit Conference, Held in Helsinki, Finland, 13–18 July, 2003 (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004).
11 Eugene Burnouf, Hauvette-Besnault, and Alfred Roussel, Le Bhagavata
Purana: Ou, Histoire Portique De Krichna, 5 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie
royale, 1840).
12 Edwin F. Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God: Śrīmad
Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a, Book X: With Chapters 1, 6, and 29–31 from Book Xi,
Penguin Classics (London: Penguin Books, 2003).
13 Graham M. Schweig, Dance of Divine Love: The Rāsa Līlā of Krishna
from the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a, India’s Classic Sacred Love Story (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2005).
14 Rick Jarow, Tales for the Dying (New York: SUNY 2003).
15 BhP 1.1.3 nigama-kalpa-taror galita
ṁ
 phala
ṁ
 śuka-mukhād am
ṛ
ta-
drava-sa
ṁ
yutam pibata bhāgavata
ṁ
 rasam ālayam muhur aho rasikā
bhuvi bhāvukā
ḥ
.

16 Gupta and Valpey, The Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a, Selected Readings (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2017), 21.
17 W. C. Smith, The Meaning and End of Religion, (London: SPCK, 1978),
156–7.
18 Rick Jarow, Tales for the Dying: The Death Narrative of the Bhāgavata
Purā
ṇ
a, Suny Series in Hindu Studies (Albany: State University of New
York Press, 2003), 35.
19 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, lxvii.
20 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, lxvii.
21 Paul Deussen. The Philosophy of the Upanishads. Translated by A. S.
Geden. Religion and Philosophy of India. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1906),
1.
22 Daniel H. H. Ingalls, “Foreword,” in Noel Sheth, The Divinity of Krishna
(New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1984), xii.
23 Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a (BhP) 1.7.2–4.
24 BhP 1.19.38.
25 BhP 12.12.56.
26 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xiii.
27 Sardella and Ghosh, “Modern Reception and Text Migration of the
Bhāgavata Purāṇa,” in The Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a: Sacred Text and Living
Tradition, ed. Ravi M. Gupta and Kenneth R. Valpey (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2013), 222.
28 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xii.
29 Madhva comments upon some 1,600 of the Purāṇa’s 18,000 verses.
30 Daniel P. Sheridan, The Advaitic Theism of the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a, 1st
ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1986), 118.

Māyā in Relation to the Human

Condition

Of Dreams and Allegorical Themes

For thousands of years, in both the east and the west, poets, philosophers,

and thinkers of all stripes have been fascinated by the experience of

dreaming, including the unsettling possibility that our so-called “waking

life” is also merely a dream. Zhuangzi famously depicts the paradox as

follows:

I, Zhuangzi, once dreamed I was a butterfly, fluttering to and fro …

following my butterfly whims. I was conscious only of my happiness as a

butterfly, unaware that I was the man, Zhuangzi. Soon I awoke, and there I

was, veritably ‘myself’ again. But now I am left wondering whether I was

then a man dreaming I was a butterfly or whether I am now a butterfly

dreaming I am a man.1

Although dreaming and waking states are in some ways similar and in some

ways different, they hold in common one striking feature that casts doubt on

the “reality” of waking life—i.e., the relatively ephemeral nature of the

experience. This notwithstanding, most individuals do distinguish between

dreaming and waking, largely based on the empirical fact of “waking up

from a dream.” Thus, they consider as “real” their daily regular experience

of family, friendship, work, society, and so forth (which remains relatively

consistent throughout the years of their lives), whereas they consider as

“unreal” their nightly irregular experience of the rather unpredictable and

disjointed realm of dreams (which appear to emerge with a new content

each evening).

Plato himself addresses the matter of dreaming and waking life in the

dialogue Theaetetus, where Socrates asks, “What proof could you give if

anyone should ask us now, at the present moment, whether we are asleep

and our thoughts are a dream, or whether we are awake and talking with

each other in a waking condition?”2 Theaetetus admits that their own

discussion could be something they are imagining in their sleep. Socrates

concludes, “So you see, it is even open to dispute whether we are awake or

in a dream.”3 According to Plato, no one can definitively prove that they are

not dreaming; thus those that are wise never assume that they are, in that

sense, awake.

Looking at the matter from a slightly different angle in the Republic, Plato

implies that, apart from a few philosophers, everyone in the world is

actually asleep: “The man who does not believe that there is such a thing as

absolute beauty is dreaming even when he is physically awake, since he

believes that something that is merely a likeness of something else is

actually the thing itself; the man who does not make such a mistake is

awake.”4 In this view, only those that come to the point of realizing that

they are factually dreaming are truly awake.

Acceptance of the possibility that the waking state is a different state of

dreaming entails acceptance of the notion that when we dream we are

dreaming within a dream—that when we awaken from our dreams, we

awaken into another dream. The riddle of the dream within a dream is

found in the works of George Berkeley, Pedro Calderon (Life’s a Dream)

and William Shakespeare, and has been discussed by Roger Caillois in the

“Logical and Philosophical Problems of the Dream.” Caillois writes:

Someone, in a dream, wakes up—or rather believes that he has awakened,

although he continues to dream—and now lies expecting another

awakening, which this time may be real but may also be as illusionary as

the first. In this way he will be transported from one dream to another, from

one awakening to another, without ever being absolutely certain whether he

has finally arrived at the true awakening, the one that will restore him to the

world of reality.5

The relationship between the dreaming and the waking state is a problem

that has benefited from a long and complex philosophical history that is by

no means unique to Western literature. The problem has been elaborately

discussed in both China and Japan, and is found in Islamic and Spanish

sources as well. It also finds an overwhelming presence in Indic texts.

Indeed, O’Flaherty considers the theme of the “dream within a dream” to

have originated in India:

When we look more closely at the distribution of this theme, we begin to

see a pattern, a complex mandala that has India as its centre. While Plato

was expounding the idealism that we think of as Platonic, Indian sages were

composing the even more idealistic Upanishads. The Chinese and Japanese

stories were based on tales carried to the Far East by Indian Buddhists; and

Spanish stories were retellings of tales brought by Islamic traders from

India. Moreover, whereas the story of the dreamer dreamt was regarded in

the West primarily as an exotic delicacy, an appetizer to titillate the mind

for a while before one got down to serious philosophizing, in India it was

the main course, philosophically speaking; it was taken very seriously

indeed, as an elusive clue to a real truth.6

O’Flaherty certainly has a point in this regard, as we find complex

discussions on this theme in numerous Indic philosophical and theological

texts, including the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

As with most Indic literatures, the Bhāgavata employs metaphors to explain

its philosophical doctrines, and the dream experience is the primary

metaphor used to describe māyā’s deluding power. The Bhāgavata

considers the human condition to be a condition of dreaming, with the word

svapna (dream) appearing well over sixty times throughout its pages, and

the Bhāgavata is certainly not unique in this regard. In the Vedas and in

many of the Upaniṣads (e.g., Kaṭha, Kena, Chāndogya) one finds the

following exhortations: tamasi mā jyotir gamāyā (“Do not stay in darkness,

come to the light”), utti

ṣṭ

ha (“Get up”!), jāgrata (“awaken”!). And

Schopenhauer observes that “the Vedas and Purāṇas know no better simile

for the whole knowledge of the actual world, called by them the web of

māyā, than the dream, and they use none more frequently.”7

In various places throughout the Bhāgavata one finds comparisons between

the fall of the eternal individual self (ātman) and the “fall” of the sleeper (as

in “falling asleep”). When dreaming, our consciousness and sense of

identity become wrapped up in the affairs of our temporary dream life,

while we remain wholly unaware of the identity (or “self”) that is lying

snuggly in bed; when awake, our consciousness and sense of identity

become similarly wrapped up in the affairs of this temporary bodily life,

while we remain wholly unaware of the identity (or “self”) that constitutes

our true eternal nature. Just as a sleeping person mistakenly identifies with

the transitory “stuff” of the world of dreams, so does the ātman, under the

influence of māyā, mistakenly identify with the transitory “stuff” of the

world of matter. As noted by Prospero in Shakespeare’s The Tempest:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, as I fortold you, were all spirits

and are melted into air, into thin air; and, like the baseless fabric of this

vision, the cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces, the solemn temples,

the great globe itself, [and] ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve and, like

this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff

as dreams are made of, and our little life is rounded with a sleep [4.1.146–

61].8

The Bhāgavata elaborates on this condition as follows:

O king! For the pure soul in pure consciousness, there is no relation with

phenomenal objects [such as the body]. [That relation is perceived] only

under the influence of…[Kṛṣṇa’s] māyā, exactly like one who perceives

within a dream. [Such an illusioned soul] assumes multifarious forms,

manifested by splendorous, multi-formed māyā, and while enjoying among

the gu

ṇ

as, thinks [always] in terms of ‘I’ and ‘mine.’ Only when [that

illusioned soul] comes to enjoy in his own glory, which is beyond time and

māyā, will he then give up both [misconceptions of ‘I’ and ‘mine’] and

remain unentangled, free from delusion.9

In other words, māyā employs the sense objects of this world to bewilder

and entangle eternal individual selves, thus preventing them from realizing

their true nature as ātman. The bonds of illusion are typically described in

terms of attachment to one’s body, spouse, children, home, and wealth, with

māyā being that which causes the eternal self to identify with the temporary

body and its related objects. Thus the eternal self becomes engrossed in a

world of temporary names and forms.

As already noted, the Bhāgavata often compares life within the temporal

realm (the mere reflection of the absolute realm) to a dream, and spiritual

emancipation to awakening from that dream. The Bhāgavata, for example,

compares the association of children, spouse, relatives, and friends to the

brief meeting of travelers, perhaps at a roadside inn. When one passes away

at death, one is separated from all such connections, just as one abruptly

loses all the objects of a dream once the dream is over.10 In another place

the Bhāgavata notes that while sleeping, one’s mind manifests an alternate

reality of various names and forms; being so absorbed, one forgets one’s

waking life, which is distinct from the dream. This is compared to one

whose consciousness is bewildered by illusion, and thus perceives only the

names and forms of temporary material objects; being so absorbed, one

forgets one’s true spiritual identity, which is distinct from the dream of

waking life, and cannot know Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Person.11

As for equating spiritual emancipation with awakening from a dream, the

Bhāgavata advises the family man to associate with saintly persons,

faithfully listen to the enchanting pastimes of Kṛṣṇa and his avatāras, and

in this way rise above attachment to body, spouse, and sons like one

awakening from a dream.12 Having thus awakened, the most fortunate are

able to enter the realm of Vraja, Kṛṣṇa’s pastoral abode—the highest of the

eternal realms, all of which are said to be distinct from the transitory world

of ordinary experience. In the twenty-first chapter of book ten, one finds a

brief description of this ultimate state of reality, which is said to be

comprised of irreducible conscious form (more about this in Chapter 5).

There it is said that the eternal inhabitants of that deathless realm ever

imbibe the beautiful faces of Kṛṣṇa and his elder brother Balarāma,

charmingly dressed and decorated with garlands, peacock feathers, lotuses,

lilies, newly grown mango sprouts, and clusters of flower buds. Holding

their flutes to their mouths and glancing lovingly around, they enter the

forest, surrounded by their immortal friends, driving the cows before them.

Hearing the entrancing sound of Kṛṣṇa’s flute, rivers run backwards, the

moving become stunned, and the nonmoving tremble in ecstacy. In this and

a thousand other ways, Vraja expands its glory in everlasting joy.13

The Allegorical City of Nine Gates

This section examines in greater detail the questions touched upon in the

above section on dreaming and waking life, and it does so by means of the

Bhāgavata’s largest and most complex allegory—that of Purañjana and the

City of Nine Gates. The questions to be addressed by means of this allegory

are of paramount concern to the Bhāgavata, and they are central to its

account of māyā and the human condition: What is the self? Why does the

eternally transcendent self misidentify with temporary matter? How does it

come to do so? In the Purañjana narrative, of course, the City of Nine Gates

is the physical body and Purañjana is the eternal self that inhabits (or is

embodied by) that city. The purpose of the allegory is to illustrate the

eternal self’s entanglement in the cycle of birth and death as well as to

examine the nature of the world in which the self is entangled.14

The Purañjana allegory is of particular relevance to both Sāṁkhya and

māyā. It appears in the Purāṇa’s fourth book and follows an extensive

discussion on Sāṁkhya, which occurs in book three.15 Most commentators

agree that this is no coincidence, since the Purañjana allegory serves as a

practical illustration of that rather technical and abstract discussion—as

well as a demonstration of its soteriological dimension. The Bhāgavata’s

Sāṁkhya discussions are used to address the larger question of how eternal

individual selves “fall” into and identify with the temporal realm. And, as

we shall see, every element of the Purañjana allegory corresponds to an

element of Bhāgavata-sā

ṁ

khya, thus endowing that system with meaning

as it relates to the human condition.

Interestingly, referring to the physical body in metaphorical terms as “the

City of Nine Gates” is not restricted to the Bhāgavata alone; the reference is

found both in the Bhagavad-gītā16 and in Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṁkhya-kārikā.17

In the Bhāgavata, Nārada first narrates the allegorical tale to King

Prācīnabarhi. The tale is then retold by Maitreya to Vidura, by Śukadeva to

King Parīkṣit, and finally by Sūta Gosvāmī to Śaunaka and the sages of

Naimiṣāraṇya. The allegory is meaningful on two levels: (1) as a concrete

illustration of the life, death, and rebirth of Purañjana (literally, “the

embodied being”), who partakes of the world’s pleasures and pains,

oblivious of his precarious temporal condition (not unlike the “Everyman”

of medieval European morality plays); and (2) as a symbolic illustration of

the inner life of the eternal self as it identifies with the temporary physical

body and its nine apertures, which draws an analogy between the eternal

self’s experience in the body and the human experience in the world.

Put simply, the allegory is concerned with four philosophical issues: the

nature of the world, the nature of the self, the nature of the embodied self’s

experience in the world, and the manner in which that experience comes

about—with māyā playing a central role in the explanation of all four

matters. And so, without further ado, please find below the allegorical tale

of Purañjana and the City of Nine Gates:

* * *

Once there was a king named Purañjana who wandered the world in search

of the perfect place, accompanied by Avijñāta-sakhā, an unknown and

mysterious friend. Eventually he came upon Nava-dvāra-pura (literally, “the

City of Nine Gates”), which he found to be quite attractive. The city, which

contained numerous towers, canals, buildings, and roads, was surrounded

by walls and parks. Its houses had domes of gold, silver and iron, with

floors inlaid with sapphire, crystal, diamonds, pearls, and emeralds.18 Birds

and bees sang sweetly and the air was misted with water from waterfalls

flowing from a snowy mountain peak.19

As Purañjana made his way through the gardens of the city, he encountered

a strikingly beautiful woman accompanied by ten male servants, each of

whom had hundreds of wives;20 a five-hooded serpant guarded her person

all around. Purañjana was attracted to her, and she was attracted to him, for

she was in search of a husband. Purañjana asked about her identity, origin

and purpose, but the woman professed ignorance. Instead, she tried to focus

Purañjana’s mind on sensual delights.

Captivated by the woman’s attractive features, the king accepted her as his

queen, and soon became preoccupied with pleasing her and enjoying the

pleasures of sex. Purañjana ruled his opulent city in great comfort,

surrounded by servants, family, and friends, to whom he became very much

attached. Desires for enjoyment preoccupied his mind, and pursuing their

fulfillment became his primary aim in life.

The queen was the center of Purañjana’s enjoyment and very existence. In

all his activities, the king followed her lead: when the queen drank, he

drank; when she dined, he dined; when she sang, he sang; when she cried,

he cried; when she laughed, he laughed; when she walked, he walked

behind, and so forth.21 Thus, the king came under the queen’s full control,

imitating her actions “like a pet animal kept for amusement.”22

One day, King Purañjana equipped himself with golden armor, his great

bow, and an inexhaustible quiver of arrows, and went to the forest named

Pañca-prastha on a chariot driven by five swift horses. Ordinarily, the king

never gave up the company of his queen even for a moment. Nonetheless,

on that day, being driven by the desire to hunt, he took up his bow and

arrow, and with great pride went to the forest, not caring for his queen. At

that time Purañjana was greatly influenced by an evil disposition, and thus

his heart became hard and merciless.23 With sharp arrows he killed many

innocent animals in the forest with no consideration for their suffering.

Upon seeing these devastating, ghastly activities of the king, “all the people

who were merciful by nature became very unhappy.”24

After some time, the king became fatigued, hungry, and thirsty, and

returned to his royal palace. He took his bath and went to sleep. Upon

awakening and decorating his body with suitable ornaments, Purañjana

began to search for his queen. Unable to find her, the king became anxious

and inquired from the household maidservants, “Where is that charming

lady who, at every step, illuminated my intelligence and lifted me up while

I was drowning in a sea of miseries?”25 The women responded to the king,

“O King, just look, she is lying on the bare ground [in anger].”26

With an aggrieved and regretful mind, the king went to his wife and began

speaking pleasing words to pacify her: “Be gracious unto me, your good

friend. Because I was mad with the passion for hunting, I offended you by

going out to hunt by myself without asking your permission.”27

Pacified by his sweet words, the queen brought the submissive Purañjana

fully under her control, delighting him with her womanly charms.

Purañjana and his queen begot eleven hundred sons and eleven hundred

daughters, all of whom were duly married. Thereafter, each of Purañjana’s

sons begot one hundred sons of their own, thus populating the city with an

abundance of offspring. As the king enjoyed these pleasures “his youth

passed away as if in a half minute,”28 and little did he realize that he was

quickly approaching death.

Soon the City of Nine Gates was attacked by a powerful king named

Caṇḍavega, who commanded an army of 360 male Gandharva soldiers and

their 360 female companions. The five-headed serpent tried to fight the

attackers for one hundred years but eventually became weak, worrying the

king and his associates. Caṇḍavega’s daughter Kālakanyā and his son

Prajvāra then imperceptibly joined the attack, escaping Purañjana’s notice.

Over time Purañjana lost his youth, beauty, and intelligence. As the soldiers

plundered his possessions, his family, ministers, and citizens began to

oppose him, and his wife became cold and indifferent. Although the king

had no desire to leave, he was forced to do so by circumstances. Prajvāra

set the city on fire, terrorizing the citizens and causing the king much grief.

Purañjana began to think of his family, home, belongings, and wealth. How

would his affectionate wife and children live in his absence? Who would

maintain them? As the king lamented in this way, Kālakanyā’s husband,

Yavana, bound King Purañjana and took him away along with the serpent

and the king’s followers. Once the king had gone, the city turned to dust.

Unfortunately, while being dragged away, Purañjana could not remember

his powerful and intimate friend, Avijñāta, and instead, thought only of his

wife.

Due to his attachment to the queen, Purañjana next took birth as a woman

named Vaidarbhī, who became the queen of King Malayadhvaja. At the end

of his life, King Malayadhvaja retired to the forest to practice yoga and

soon achieved liberation (mok

ṣ

a). Queen Vaidarbhī became overwhelmed

with grief at her husband’s death. As she lamented piteously, a brāhma

ṇ

approached her and introduced himself as her “eternal friend.” Unknown to

her, he had accompanied her in all her previous births:

Don’t you recognize me as the unknown friend you used to roam about

with? … You left me because you wanted things, and became attached to

earthly pleasures. O noble one! You and I are swans, friends living in the

Mānasa Lake… You left me, friend, and with your heart set on carnal

pleasures, you arrived in the world. While roaming there, you saw a place

built by a certain woman.29 [The identity of that place and that woman are

central to the discussion and analysis that follows.]

“In this way,” the Bhāgavata concludes, Purañjana “is awakened and made

to realize his original state by his fellow swan. Once again in his original

nature, he regains the memory he had lost due to separation from his

unknown friend, the brāhma

ṇ

a.”30

After Nārada finishes the tale, King Prācīnabarhi requests him to reveal its

inner meaning. Nārada’s explanation is brief, and thus interpreting the

various characters and their roles is a hermeneutical exercise in itself. The

following analysis draws upon the Bhāgavata’s Sāṁkhya discussions, the

works of several commentators, Isvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṁkhya-kārika, and the

views of more recent Sāṁkhya scholars.

Īśvara—the Eternal Friend

As discussed in the previous chapter, the Bhāgavata often uses various

names to refer to God, one of which is Īśvara. The Sanskrit word īśvara

derives from the root īś, meaning “to command” or “sovereignty.” It

appears six times in the Atharva-veda, and “refers in the oldest texts to a

personal but unnamed God.”31 In later literature, the term Īśvara was often

preferred in philosophical discourse and debates regarding the validity of

the concept of a personal creator.32 This is because, in contrast to names

such as Kṛṣṇa, Bhagavān, or Viṣṇu, it is seen more as a philosophical

category than as a specific personal reference to the supreme being.33 In the

Bhāgavata, īśvara is used to denote the philosophical category of “master”

or “controller,” and is sometimes used in reference to one of the subordinate

“gods” of the universe, such as Brahmā, who are controllers within the

limited sphere of their specific jurisdictions. The term can even sometimes

apply to the jīvas, who in a circumscribed sense are considered masters of

their individual bodies.34

The Bhāgavata subsumes the Vedic term Īśvara in its Sāṁkhya framework

by assigning Īśvara a special category called śuddha-sattva (pure goodness)

or viśuddha-sattva (completely pure goodness). The term viśuddha-sattva is

found neither in classical nor in earlier Sāṁkhya texts, and thus it is most

likely unique to the Bhāgavata. As noted in the previous chapter, the

temporal realm is gu

ṇ

a-mayī, composed of the three gu

ṇ

as, goodness,

passion, and darkness (sattva, rajas, and tamas). When there is a complete

absence of rajas and tamas, the Bhāgavata describes this state as pure

goodness (viśuddha-sattva). Kṛṣṇa’s eternal forms and the abodes of his

absolute realm (Vaikuṇṭha) are all said to be viśuddha-sattva:

Where there is neither rajas nor tamas, nor sattva that is mixed with either,

time has no power, nor does māyā [as the external energy] exist there, what

to speak of other [negative influences]! There the devotees of Hari are

worshipped by the gods and asuras.35

The notion of viśuddha-sattva is crucial to the Bhāgavata’s doctrine of

liberation. The Bhāgavata does not simply regard liberation as freedom

from the gu

ṇ

as (as conceived in classical Sāṁkhya), nor as oneness with

Brahman (as conceived in Advaita Vedānta). From the Bhāgavata’s

perspective, while both these forms of liberation provide freedom from

suffering, they do not provide the positive experience of ānanda (pleasure,

joy, bliss). The Bhāgavata considers the highest form of liberation to be

participation in Kṛṣṇa’s eternal līlā,36 and in this regard, it distinguishes

between material substance (composed of the gu

ṇ

as) and spiritual

substance (composed of viśuddha-sattva). The Bhāgavata states that

Kṛṣṇa’s form and abode are completely pure goodness: 37

Your dhāma [form] is unchanging pure sattva, composed of virtue, and

devoid of rajas and tamas. This flux of gu

ṇ

as, consisting of māyā and

bound up in ignorance, is not to be found in you.38

The Sanskrit term dhāma generally means abode. Here, however, Śrīdhara

glosses the word as being synonymous with svarūpa (form), thus stating

that both Kṛṣṇa’s form and abode are completely pure sattva. In other

passages in the Bhāgavata we find Brahmā, who is born from the lotus

flower emanating from Viṣṇu’s navel, also eulogizing the form of Viṣṇu as

pure sattva:

We gods and sages have been created by sattva, which constitutes the

beloved body of the Lord, yet even we do not know its subtle movement,

what to speak of the demons and others.39

According to the Bhāgavata, Kṛṣṇa’s abode and form (dhāma) exist not

only in the absolute realm of Vaikuṇṭha, but in the temporal realm as well,

where they are said to retain their pure viśuddha-sattva feature. Kṛṣṇa is

said to eternally reside in Mathurā,40 where he performs his various

childhood pastimes, and in Dvārakā,41 where he establishes his kingdom.

His being, which is manifest through its own energies, is said to be self-

luminous, one without a second, imperishable, eternally blissful, completely

pure and wholly purifying.42 Indeed, the Bhāgavata is emphatic that

Kṛṣṇa’s form and abode are forever free from any tinge of māyā—meaning

māyā’s feature as the agent that deludes and entangles those selves that are

desirous of artificially existing in separation from Kṛṣṇa. Here it is

important to note that māyā also has a feature that manifests in relation to

the affairs of the absolute realm, where those individuals that have never

turned away from Kṛṣṇa reside and exchange love with the cowherd boy

who is the supreme object of their affection. This function will be

elaborately discussed in Chapter 5.

Purañjana: The Embodied Self

The Purañjana narrative suggests that the eternal individual self is a person,

possessing all the sensory, mental, and intellectual faculties that are found

in the temporary physical and subtle bodies. The relationship between the

embodied self and the intellect, the carrier of the physical senses, is

allegorically presented as follows:

When she [the queen, buddhi] drank liquor, he drank. When she ate, he ate.

When she chewed, he chewed. He sang when she was singing, cried when

she was crying, laughed when she was laughing, and answered back when

she was speaking … He listened when she was listening, and looked at

what she was looking at. He smelled what she was smelling and what she

was touching, he touched.43

Here Purañjana is described as an embodied self that has forgotten his own

innate eternal nature due to his identifying with the Queen (the intellect)

and the City of Nine Gates (the temporary physical body). The narrative

implies that even when liberated from both the gross physical body and the

subtle senses, mind, and intellect, the eternal self nonetheless possesses a

non-material (metaphysical) body, with its own non-material (metaphysical)

senses, mind, and intellect. If this is presumed, however, we are faced with

a major potential problem: who or what is conscious of that body (or form)?

The narrative compares the physical body to a chariot, the senses to the

chairot’s five uncontrolled horses, the intellect to the chariot’s driver, and

the mind to the chariot’s reins, with the conscious self (the person) riding

inside as passenger.44 However, if it is proposed that the conscious self

possesses a non-material form, which includes senses, mind, and intellect,

one might inquire as to the nature of the “passenger” that is riding inside of

that chariot—i.e., who or what is perceiving through this non-material

form. In other words, first we posit a form constituted of matter through

which the conscious self perceives and functions in the temporal realm,

then we posit a form constituted of spirit (or non-matter). But then does the

conscious self perceive and function through this form as well? Here we

express a line of reasoning that obviously leads to the homunculus fallacy:

an argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very

phenomenon it is supposed to explain, resulting in an infinite regress—a

sequence of reasoning or justification that can never come to an end.

The homunculus fallacy most commonly arises in connection with theories

of vision. When light from the outside world forms images on the retina

(like the images on a movie screen), who or what is watching the movie? If

one posits, as an answer, that there is some sort of conscious observer inside

the “head”—a homunculus, or “little man,” that perceives the images—one

is then faced with the problem of explaining how that “little man”

perceives. For those that adhere to the validity of this fallacy, the answer is

obvious: one must then posit the existence of another little man inside the

first one, and another little man inside that one, and so on and so forth ad

infinitum—that is, in an infinite regress.

One way of overcoming the infinite regress in causal analyses is to posit the

existence of a causeless first cause, and indeed this sort of argument has

been used by various theologians to argue for the existence of God (the

prime mover). In the case of the homunculus fallacy, however, we are

speaking of an infinite regress not of causes, but rather of conscious

perceivers or observers. Yet, as with causes, the only way around this sort

of problem is to posit a first conscious observer from whom no further

regressions are possible. Another way, of course, is to eliminate the

conscious observer entirely, as do many cognitive scientists and

philosophers who believe that consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon of

brain functioning which causes us to mistakenly presume a “ghost in the

machine.” Many monists and Buddhist would likely adhere to this view as

well. And since the Bhāgavata proposes that the eternal self (the conscious

observer within the body) does indeed possess a non-material personal form

—with its own innate senses, intelligence, and ability to perceive—we must

ask how the Bhāgavata meets the homunculus challenge?

The Bhāgavata posits that there is a fundamental qualitative difference

between temporary material forms and beginningless non-material forms. In

this view, the absolute realm consists of eternal conscious forms that are

irreducible in nature—conscious forms that are individual, personal, and

beginningless, like the original supreme form of Kṛṣṇa (God). In the

previous chapter, it was suggested that the Bhāgavata conceives of the

Absolute Truth as a complete person, who possesses all the faculties and

features that one normally associates with personhood, and yet who exists

perpetually beyond the realm of temporary material form in his own eternal

non-material abode. But what of the minute eternal selves that emanate

from that supreme person like ray-particles emanating from the sun.

Bhāgavata commentators have noted that as a drop of sea water contains the

same chemical composition as the sea itself, so do the minute eternal selves

contain the same fundamental nature as God himself. In other words,

according to the Bhāgavata, the transcendental form of the eternal self—

which includes intelligence, senses, and the ability to perceive—is nothing

like the form of matter that is a construction of the twenty-three elements of

the Sāṁkhya system. It is not the glove, it is the hand; it is not the

reflection, it is the reflected; it is not the temporary physical encasing, it is

the fully free and liberated self—the very form of consciousness. Here,

then, we have an eternal conscious observer, with no beginning, middle, or

end, thus putting an end to the problem of infinite regress—a subject matter

that will be broached again in Chapter 5, but from a slightly different

avenue of approach.

For now, to shed a bit more light on a difficult topic, we can also view the

non-material self as a “simple entity”—a fundamental, irreducible, complex

particular, similar to Aristotle’s concept of “a kind.” In this view, despite the

fact that the non-material self possesses attributes such as form-ness,

consciousness, intelligence, mind, and senses, that self is an “irreducible

complex substance”—a “simple entity” consisting only of viśuddha-sattva.

In contrast, the non-material self’s temporary physical body has no unified

existence; rather, it is a “complex particular” consisting of a “bundle” of at

least twenty-three elements comprised of the three gu

ṇ

as. In other words,

while the eternal, non-material form is an irreducible substance that

manifests certain properties, the temporary physical body (a machine made

of matter) can be reduced to its constituent parts (a primary project of the

physical sciences).

Moving on to a somewhat related matter, it should be noted that the

Purañjana narrative presents a view of the eternal self that is very different

from that of the non-theistic Sāṁkhya-kārikā, which regards the “puru

ṣ

as”

as unmingled (kaivalyam), indifferent (mādhya-sthyam) witnesses

(sāk

ṣ

itvam)—non-agents (akart

ṛ

-bhāva) that somehow possess the faculty

of sight (dra

ṣṭṛ

tvam).45 In this view, the puru

ṣ

a is devoid of all action,

emotion, and will—it is not a “conscious self” in any normal sense of the

term. It is largely a detail, the presence of which serves to activate prak

ṛ

and nothing more—a type of non-entity entity.

In contrast, the Purañjana narrative posits an eternal self that possesses free

will and agency. Recall that although Purañjana’s general inclination is to

follow behind the queen, at one point he decides to go hunting alone

instead, accompanied by eleven “commanders,” representing the mind and

ten senses. This indicates that, from the Bhāgavata’s perspective, the self is

free to follow either the urges of the mind and senses or the guidance of the

intelligence—i.e., that it has volition and the capacity to choose.

When Purañjana returns from hunting, he regrets his decision and inquires

as to the whereabouts of his queen (the intelligence): “Where is that

charming lady who, at every step, illuminated my intelligence and lifted me

up while I was drowning in a sea of miseries?”46 Although the queen

(buddhi), a manifestation of rajas, entangles Purañjana in bondage, the

Bhāgavata still considers buddhi to be superior to the uncontrolled mind,

because at least she guides Purañjana to enjoy according to the regulations

of the śāstras.

With regard to the mind (manas), Bhāgavata-sā

ṁ

khya considers it a subtle

material element, which gathers impressions of objects through the

senses.47 The buddhi reflects upon situations, makes judgments, seeks

information, and performs higher level analyses.48 But, as already noted in

our discussion of infinite regress, the manas and buddhi are neither the

conscious experiencer nor the agent. The true experiencer (bhokt

ṛ

) is the

puru

ṣ

a, who exists independent of the temporal body and mind: “The cause

of experiencing pleasures and pain is the puru

ṣ

a, superior to prak

ṛ

ti.”49 Not

only is the puru

ṣ

a the experiencer, it is also the doer: “With a body

animated by life, the puru

ṣ

a wanders from world to world, experiencing as

he continually (bhuñjāna) performs actions (karma

ṇ

i karoti).”50

However, if the self is considered an irreducible conscious principle that is

the agent, perceiver and experiencer, one would then want to know how

such a self interacts with the physical body? How does a non-material self

interact with material elements (the old Cartesian problem)? Descartes’

(1596–1650) solution, of course, was to propose that the mind (which he

considered to be the self) interacts with the brain through the medium of the

pineal gland, which in turn activates the nerves and muscles of the body.51

This, however, still leaves out the matter of how the mind (or self) is aware

of and transmits information to the body—questions that Descartes never

effectively answered.52

Not long after Descartes proposed his solution, however, Cartesian

philosophers Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715) and Arnold Geulincx

(1624–1669) introduced the doctrine of occasionalism, which upholds

Descartes’ basic premise that mind and matter are distinct entities, but

concludes that these two entites are incapable of interacting. Instead they

proposed that it is God himself who enables interactions between the two.

David Griffin explains:

According to this doctrine, on the occasion of my hand’s being on a hot

stove, God causes my mind to feel pain. On the occasion of my deciding to

move my hand, accordingly, God obliges, moving it for me. All apparent

interaction between mind and body is said to require this constant

supernatural intervention.53

The Bhāgavata places both the subtle body (mind, intelligence, false ego)

and the physical body (earth, water, fire, air, space) on one side of the

Cartesian divide and the puru

ṣ

a (the eternal individual self) on the other,

noting that the relationship (or connection) between the conscious self and

the false ego (aha

ṁ

kāra) is established by God; in this sense, it bears a

resemblance to occasionalism. In the Bhāgavata’s view, the embodied

ātmān cannot independently influence the actions of the material body.

When it desires to act in relation to the body, these desires are perceived by

God, known technically as the supreme soul (puru

ṣ

ḥ

para

ḥ

),54 who then

moves prak

ṛ

ti accordingly: “He [the puru

ṣ

a para] is the perceiver of all the

qualities (gu

ṇ

as) of nature (prak

ṛ

ti) and all the actions (karma) of the living

entities (jīvas). He gives pain or pleasure to the jīvas according to their

previous karma.”55 Interaction takes place through the paramātmā (the

Lord in the heart), and prak

ṛ

ti acts in the form of the body, sense organs,

and mind, composed of the three gu

ṇ

as. Thus the individual conscious self

merely desires, and in this sense, does nothing. Nor does that self cause (in

the mechanical sense) anything to be done. As already noted in Chapter 2,

“Man proposes, but God disposes.”56

In his Bhāgavata commentary, Viśvanātha discusses the delicate balance

between God’s agency, nature (prak

ṛ

ti), and the eternal self (jīva):

Bondage is created due to the jīva’s own actions… Because action is

accomplished by the body, senses and presiding deities of the senses,

prak

ṛ

ti is said to be the cause since it is the cause of the body, senses and

devatās (presiding deities)… The bestower of results of actions is the

Supreme Lord alone. Thus it is said that the jīvas’ enjoyment of results of

action is dependent on the Lord alone.57

Here Viśvanātha notes that the Bhāgavata identifies three causes of all

phenomena: (1) Īśvara, who develops prak

ṛ

ti according to the results of the

jīvas’ actions; (2) prak

ṛ

ti, which manifests the material elements, senses

and devatās; and (3) the jīvas, whose own desires are the cause of their

bondage and liberation: “The universe is desired by You [Kṛṣṇa] for the

sake of the jīvas and not for Yourself.”58 Īśvara is the efficient cause,

prak

ṛ

ti is the material cause, and the jīva is the final cause.

Other commentators unanimously agree with Viśvanātha. The renowned

Śrīdhara Svāmī, in his own Bhāgavata commentary, writes:

All [God’s] actions are meant for the welfare of all living entities and not

for himself. Māyā executes the creation, sustenance and destruction of the

universe, and although it is non-sentient matter, it is capable of performing

these operations due to God’s presence—just as iron filings move under the

influence of a magnet. This is the example cited in order to explain the

activity of prak

ṛ

ti (or māyā).59

Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin, a commentator from the Śrī Vaiṣṇava pupilary

line, agrees that both God and the eternal self possess agency:

As the body moves [according to] the dictates of the soul, so māyā, as your

[God’s] body, acts under your order. You [instill her with] your power … so

that she can create and so on … [God] gives pain or pleasure to the jīvas

according to their previous karma. So he is not to be blamed as prejudiced.

God creates the universe and provides every jīva with a body and mind.

Externally, he gives the Vedas, revealing his own nature, the nature of the

universe, and the duties of the jīvas. Then the jīvas act according to their

previous karma and perform good or bad deeds. The gods give only the

commensurate fruit of the karma performed by the living entities (jīvas).

[Thus God] is not partial.60

It is in the above sense that the conscious individual selves are considered

to be the “final cause” of creation. Creation, in other words, takes place

only for the fulfillment of the living beings’ desires and welfare. Prak

ṛ

itself is non-sentient matter and thus cannot be the ultimate cause of the

living beings’ activities and bondage. It is the individual selves’ desire that

brings them into association with prak

ṛ

ti—an association that is permitted,

but not desired, by Kṛṣṇa (God).

The Queen and Her Ten

Bodyguards: the Intellect and the

Senses

While the Bhāgavata does not explicitly identify Purañjana’s queen as the

intellect (buddhi), its various commentators have taken the liberty of doing

so. By studying the Bhāgavata’s Sāṁkhya system, however, one can infer

that such a gloss is not unreasonable. Recall that the narrative of the City of

Nine Gates in the Bhāgavata’s fourth book comes just after the extensive

discussion on Sāṁkhya in book three,61 and thus serves as a practical

illustration of the rather technical and abstract ideas presented in that book.

There we learned that the Bhāgavata regards buddhi (the intellect) as the

embodied self’s principal “I-maker” as well as the first manifestation of the

false self in the quality of passion. Then, in the fourth book allegory itself,

we are told that the Queen (the symbol of passion) is the first person that

Purañjana meets, that he is attracted to her, and that she enables his

preoccupation with sensual delights, thus solidifying his false sense of self.

As such, it should come as no surprise that commentators, following along

the lines of the third book’s explanation of buddhi, have concluded that the

Queen, in terms of both the order of her appearance and her function, must

represent buddhi (the intellect).

In addition, Purañjana’s questioning of the queen during their first meeeting

is said to represent the “embodied being” asking the intellect for answers to

important existential questions: Who am I? Where have I come from? What

is the purpose of my being here? The queen responds with indifference,

claiming ignorance of the answers, and attempts to distract the king from

asking such questions at all. Thus she is said to represent the intellect

contaminated by rajas and tamas directing the embodied self toward the

temporary sensual pleasures of this world (māyā-sukha62):

O bull among men, we do not know properly who is your or my progenitor

… Nor do we know who created this city which is my abode, O warrior.

Leave aside the details about my name, family, and the rest. O destroyer of

enemies, I am glad that you have come. If you please, whatever sensual

pleasures you desire, I shall secure for you with the help of my kinsmen.

Please occupy this City of Nine Gates, enjoying for a hundred years.63

The queen is the basis and center of Purañjana’s pleasures, and in all his

activities he follows her lead, indicating that the embodied self enjoys the

body due to identification with the intellect. Īśvarakṛṣṇa writes in the

Sāṁkhya-kārikā:

Buddhi [intellect], manas [mind] and aha

ṁ

kāra [false ego] comprehend all

types of objects. Hence these three internal instruments are like a house

with the senses as its gates. Like a lamp, the various diverse manifestations

of the three gu

ṇ

as thus reveal their objects to the buddhi so that they can be

exhibited before the puru

ṣ

a, which witnesses. So it is the buddhi that

enables the puru

ṣ

a to experience objects.64

According to Bhāgavata-sāṁkhya, because buddhi is a manifestation of

passion (rajas), the embodied self’s identification with buddhi results in

attraction between man and woman. The Bhāgavata considers sexual

enjoyment to be the strongest knot binding the eternal self to the transient

world of māyā because it reinforces the illusion that the body is the self.65

In the fifth chapter of the fifth book, sexual attraction is identified as the

basic principle of temporal existence—that which binds together the two

attached hearts and then expands that attachment to include children,

relatives, home, property, wealth, and so forth. In this way, the eternal self

becomes more and more entangled in the flickering world of illusion,

always thinking in terms of “I” and “mine”—a scenario that holds true for

all genders (more about this in Chapter 6).66

The point is that it is the desire to enjoy the objects and other aspects of this

world that binds us, entangles us, and keeps us perpetually trapped (and

suffering) in the cycle of birth and death. While Purañjana is superficially

portrayed as a “king” (a male) in terms of the surface tale, on a deeper level

he serves as a symbolic representation of the eternal self, which is more or

less gender neutral. According to the Bhāgavata, a self currently occupying

a female body is likely to have previously occupied the body of a man that

had been attached to a woman. Now, as a woman, that deluded self, under

the influence of māyā, generally regards men as potential mates, who help

to acquire wealth, home, children, and other material assets. Such a

“woman” is advised to recognize that all such acquirements are ephemeral

manifestations of Kṛṣṇa’s māyā. The Bhāgavata compares the allurement

of material assets to the sweet singing of the hunter, which leads the deer to

its own demise.67

Turning now to those ten bodyguards, who represent the ten senses,

Bhāgavata-sā

ṁ

khya explains that when passion (rajas) is predominant not

only does the intellect (buddhi) manifest, but the five knowledge acquiring

senses (jñāna-indriya) and the five working senses (karma-indriya)

manifest as well. The knowledge acquiring senses are the senses of smell

(gandha), form (āk

ṛ

ti), touch (sparśa), taste (rasa), and sound (śravā

ṁ

si);

and the working senses are evacuating (visarga), sexual intercourse (rati),

movement (arti), speaking (abhijalpa), and grasping or releasing (śilpa).68

The ten physical organs corresponding to the senses (nose, tongue, skin,

eyes, ears, mouth, hands, legs, genitals, and anus) are not considered senses;

rather, they are generally thought to receive their capacities from the senses,

with each physical organ exemplifying a particular sense—i.e., the ears

exemplifying the sense of hearing, the eyes exemplifying the sense of sight,

and so forth.

Together, the ego, intellect, mind, and senses comprise what the Bhāgavata

calls the li

ṅ

ga-śarīra (the subtle material body).69 This subtle body,

described as being more swift than the wind,70 carries the eternal self’s

karmic history from one lifetime to another. The senses function not only to

make us aware of external objects, but also to urge the body toward activity

—the primary characteristic of rajas. All ten senses are regarded as

“servants” of the mind, and they each have “hundreds of wives.” These

wives represent desires for material experience, and the senses act under

their pressure. Together, they attend to the intellect (the Queen), serving

“her” and bringing “her” information.

The Eleventh Bodyguard: The

Mind

According to the Bhāgavata, the mind (manas) is a product of goodness

(sattva), and thus its central function is to reveal objects to the self. The

mind is said to be the controller of the ten senses, which require its direction

in order to function. It is neither atomic nor eternal, but is rather a product

of the gu

ṇ

as—and like all material phenomena, subtle and gross, it is

subject to eventual dissolution.

According to the Sāṁkhya-kārikā, the function of the mind is sa

ṁ

kalpa,

which translates as “constructive,” “reflective,” “analytic,” or

“explicative,”71 but can also mean “determination” or “strong desire.” The

Bhāgavata, in at least six different places, identifies the primary functions

of the mind as reflecting (sa

ṁ

kalpa), doubting (vikalpa), and generating

desires (kāma-sambhava).72 There it is said that when the senses contact

objects, sensations are conveyed to the mind, which it then identifies and

combines to create innumerable desires—desires that are displayed before

the self. When the mind is overcome (or contaminated) by rajas (passion)

and tamas (darkness), it pushes the self toward carnal pleasures, causing the

self to pursue courses of action that have painful and/or disruptive

consequences.73 That is why in the Bhāgavata, the Gītā, and many other

Indic texts, one is urged to bring the mind under control through practice,

detachment, and realization of the detrimental effects of chasing the

flickering objects of the temporal realm.74

As already noted, the Bhāgavata portrays the individual self as a person,

full with form, senses, mind, intellect, and free will—i.e., the capacity to

accept or reject the mind’s desires. While primarily a product of goodness,

the mind most often falls under the influence of passion and darkness in one

or another of an uncountable number of combinations.

In the Bhāgavata’s eleventh book, Kṛṣṇa describes the primary

characteristics of the mind under the influence of each gu

ṇ

a: the mind that

is peaceful, satisfied, and detached is said to be in sattva-gu

ṇ

(goodness);75 the mind that is restless, filled with limitness desires, and

plagued by material longing is said to be in rajo-gu

ṇ

a (passion);76 and the

mind that is overtaken by bleakness, depression, and a lack of clarity is said

to be in tamo-gu

ṇ

a (darkness).77

The material mind is described as gu

ṇ

a-pravaha, that which flows in the

stream of the gu

ṇ

as. According to the Bhāgavata, when the mind becomes

disturbed by the fluctuations of the gu

ṇ

as, the embodied self suffers due to

its identification with those mental fluctuations, even though it remains in a

changeless (avikala

ḥ

pumān) and unaffected state.78 It is said that when one

places a crystal, which contains no particular color, in proximity to a red

object, the crystal appears to be red only due to proximity—its redness is an

optical illusion. Regardless of the color it reflects, the crystal remains ever

colorless, changeless, and unaffected, as does the self in relation to the

temporal realm of gu

ṇ

as. Misidentification with the mind keeps the eternal

self entangled in the pains and pleasures of the temporal realm, and in this

way the eternal self is caused to suffer. The solution is said to be more or

less obvious: measures that break the cycle of misidentification, bring about

genuine detachment, and awaken the eternal self to its true spiritual identity.

Indeed, the Bhāgavata confirms in numerous places that conquering the

mind and fixing it on the Supreme represents the highest human

achievement:

Charity, prescribed duties, observance of major and minor regulative

principles, hearing from scripture, pious works and purifying vows all have

as their final aim the subduing of the mind. Indeed, concentration of the

mind on the Supreme is the highest yoga. If one’s mind is perfectly fixed

and pacified, then tell me what need does one have to perform ritualistic

charity and other pious rituals? And if one’s mind remains uncontrolled,

lost in ignorance, then of what use are these engagements for him?79

As already noted, the Bhāgavata considers the mind to be a manifestation of

goodness. As such, it can be potentially used to worship God, who is

viśuddha-sattva (pure, unalloyed goodness). Indeed the Bhāgavata contains

accounts of powerful individuals like Dhruva, who were able to withdraw

the mind from involvement with the temporal realm’s external objects and

firmly fix it on God’s form, meditating on nothing else.80

Caṇḍavega: Time

In the Purañjana allegory, the attack of Caṇḍavega (“swiftly rushing

away”) symbolizes the passage of time, with his army of 360 male and

female soldiers representing the days and nights of the year, which

relentlessly reduce the lifespan of all embodied beings. Caṇḍavega’s

daughter, Kālakanyā, is symbolic of old age, which imperceptibly creeps up

on Purañjana (the embodied being), accompanied by brothers Prajvāra

(fever) and Yavana (death), the soldiers of whom represent the diseases that

enter the gates of the city (the physical body) and plague Purañjana in

various ways.

The Serpent: The Vital Air

The allegory’s five-headed serpent represents the vital air, which has five

constituents: prā

ṇ

a, apāna, vyāna, samāna, and udāna.81 These airs defend

the body from disease, and when they move in proper balance, the body

remains healthy. In the allegory, the serpent (the vital air) fights time (old

age, disease, and death) for one hundred years (the optimistic average

human lifespan). Inevitably, however, time has its way and the serpent is

seen to gradually weaken. Here it is important to note that in this symbolic

battle, the serpent (the vital air) is not destroyed, but only weakened and

dragged away, along with Purañjana (the embodied self) and his many

followers (material desires). In other words, at the time of death, the subtle

body (mind, intelligence, and false ego) is retained and the vital air carries

the self to its next bodily destination. This continues lifetime after lifetime

until the point of liberation, at which time the subtle body finally dissolves

along with the gross physical body. Nārada notes in this connection that it is

by means of the vital air that the puru

ṣ

a (the eternal self) transmigrates

from one bodily state to another, experiencing happiness, sorrow, misery,

fear, and so on.82 As to the temporal physical body, once the self departs

along with the subtle body, it gradually turns to dust.

The Relation between Purāṇajana

and His Queen

The City of Nine Gates and its inhabitants—the queen, bodyguards,

children, grandchildren, and so forth—all contribute to the construction of

Purañjana’s self-identity. All the persons, places and objects that

Purāṇajana encounters (including his own body, mind, and intellect)

contribute to the formation of his false conception of “I” and “mine”—the

aha

ṁ

kāra or false ego of the embodied being. Regarding the temporal

realm of subtle and physical objects that form this false conception, that

realm is said to be a product of the universal aha

ṁ

kāra. This section

explores the nature of that construction in terms of Purañjana’s queen

(buddhi, the intellect).

The two oldest Upaniṣads, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya, posit that the

embodied self experiences three alternate states of consciousness: waking

(jāgara

ṇ

am), dreaming (svapnam), and deep sleep (su

ṣ

upti).83 In the first

of these states, the senses, mind, and intellect are active, in the second, the

mind, and intellect are active,84 and in the third, the physical body is at rest

and there is a complete cessation of all mental functioning.85 With regard to

the first two of these states, waking and dreaming, it is said that waking

dissipates the “reality” of the dream experience, just as dreaming dissipates

the “reality” of the waking experience. The embodied self is said to enter

into and out of these two states like a fish that swims between two

shorelines without being touched by either.86

With regard to entering the dream state, the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad notes

that each night, after encountering varieties of good and bad waking

experiences, the individual travels along the pathway of sleep into the realm

of dream, where he/she basically forgets all the experiences, relationships,

and attachments of his/her waking life.87 Then, after the self has wandered

for some time in the realm of dream, encountering varieties of good and bad

dreaming experiences, he follows the pathway from whence he came back

to the waking realm, where he has more or less forgotten most of the

experiences, relationships, and attachments of his/her dreaming life.88 Thus

the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad does not appear to assign greater weight to

either one of these states of consciousness.

Drawing from the Upaniṣads, the Bhāgavata describes the same three states

of consciousness, but contends that all of them are manifestations of

Kṛṣṇa’s māyā, and in doing so, makes an interesting point:89 not only the

experiences of the dreaming world, but also the experiences of the waking

world are factually experienced in the mind. In other words, the embodied

self experiences not the objects themselves, but only the impressions of

those objects appearing in the mind.90

Recall that in the allegory, Purañjana vicariously experiences the world of

enjoyment through his queen, meaning that the embodied self identifies

with the intellect and thus projects itself into the temporal realm as a

participant; in this way, as previously noted, the embodied self creates a

false ego or identity, and experiences worldly pleasures and pains by means

of this artificial sense of self—suffering when the physical body and/or

subtle mind are in any way afflicted and delighting when they are in any

way pleased.

To posit that the embodied self experiences only mental impressions,

however, is not to posit that the temporal realm has no concrete existence

outside the mind. According to the Bhāgavata, the world is a real

manifestation of temporary objects, but the embodied self is only capable of

experiencing those objects as impressions upon the mind—and enjoys or

suffers due to those impressions. Dissolve the mind and the world ceases to

exist for that particular perceiver since it is only through the medium of the

mind that the embodied self perceives the world. For as long as the mind

exists, the waking and dreaming states manifest themselves within the range

of perception of the self—the knower of the field (k

ṣ

etrajñā).91

Beyond its relation to the present embodiment of the self, the mind, as the

repository of karma, directs the self to its next bodily destination. In other

words, the mind is a storehouse of impressions unconsciously left by the

good and bad actions of one’s previous life, and it is these that result in the

self’s embodiment in various higher and lower forms of physical life.92 The

type of body one next receives is dependent upon the content of that

storehouse.

Recall that in the Purañjana allegory, the king (the embodied self) is finally

forced to abandon the City of Nine Gates (the physical body) accompanied

by his followers. He is then reborn as a woman because of his attachment to

a woman in his previous life. Although the motif of rebirth is not over-

emphasized in the Purañjana allegory, it is an important aspect of the

narrative in terms of demonstrating, among other things, the power of desire

and attachment in forming one’s next situation. According to the

Bhāgavata, for those that are too attached to the things of the temporal

realm, death is not necessarily synonymous with “awakening” (or being

liberated) from one’s waking dream. In the case of the attached, the change

of the physical body (sthūla-śarīra) at death merely represents the

movement of the entrapped eternal self from its current temporary identity

(or waking dream) to its next temporary identity (or waking dream). True

awakening is said to come only when the eternal self fully comprehends

that he/she has nothing whatsoever to do with the flickering persons, places

and affairs of the temporal realm, and thus devotes her/himself to Kṛṣṇa

instead.93

The Relation between Purañjana

and His Unknown Friend

(Paramātmā)

Having discussed the relation between Purañjana and his queen, we can

now move on to Purañjana’s second crucial relation—that between himself

and his unknown friend (Paramātmā or the Lord in the heart). In so doing,

we will briefly revisit the question touched upon at the beginning of this

chapter, which is certainly among the most challenging of those asked of

Bhāgavata philosophy: who or what has caused the eternal individual self to

forget his/her original changeless identity and to instead misidentify with

the temporal realm of matter? And why did this entanglement, this apparent

“fall from grace,” occur?

When Purañjana reincarnates as Queen Vaidarbhī and becomes

overwhelmed with grief on the death of “her” husband, an “unknown

friend” appoaches her in the guise of a brāhma

ṇ

a and attempts to pacify the

distraught widow. As already noted, this unknown friend is Kṛṣṇa’s

Paramātmā feature, which is said to dwell in the hearts of all living beings,

accompanying them in their sojourn through multifarious births and deaths

in the temporal realm. The “brāhma

ṇ

a” begins by asking Queen Vaidarbhī

whether she recognizes him as her old friend, mentioning that she has

consulted him many times in the past. He then notes that, unfortunately, she

abandoned his company to chase fleeting things and become an enjoyer of

matter, attached to carnal delights.94 Yet, while she may have abandoned

him, he has not abandoned her, but rather has been right by her side from

the very start of her temporal wanderings.

Here the Bhāgavata suggests that the embodied beings of this world

originally dwelt in the absolute realm with God, where they enjoyed an

intimate loving relationship with that supreme being, the center of their

existence. At some point, however, they willfully turned away from God in

order to pursue the self-centered pleasures of this world. As already noted

several times in this chapter, each individual self has the capacity to choose

which path to follow—where to pitch one’s tent, so to speak. It is clear that

Purañjana voluntarily chose to leave his “original home” in order to enjoy

in the transitory “garden of delights,” but the narrative provides no clear

answer as to why he made that choice, although various Bhāgavata

commentators have proffered various suggestions. The most common

suggestion put forward by commentators is that while God, the complete

whole, clearly wants his eternal emanations, the individual selves, to be

happily involved in eternal loving exchange with him, there is the important

matter of free will, without which there is no possibility of love (a voluntary

act). In other words, because we are partially independent, we can

voluntarily choose whether we wish to function in positive relation to God

or to function outside that relation, seeking fulfillment by perversely

attempting to become rather than to devote ourselves to the complete whole.

And when the former of these alternatives is chosen, what is God to do with

such a fundamentally contradictory demand. After all, under absolutely no

circumstances can the part ever become the whole. Bhaktivedānta Swami

(1896–1977), a modern-day Vaiṣṇava commentator on the Bhāgavata,

addresses the point as follows:

The living entities are illusioned by the will of the Lord because they

wanted to become like Him. Like a person who thinks of becoming a king

without possessing the necessary qualification, when the living entity

desires to become the Lord Himself, he is put in a condition of dreaming

that he is a king.

Therefore the first sinful will of the living entity is to become the Lord, and

the consequent will of the Lord is that the living entity forget his factual life

and thus dream of the land of utopia where he may become one like the

Lord.

The child cries to have the moon from the mother, and the mother gives the

child a mirror to satisfy the crying and disturbing child with the reflection

of the moon. Similarly, the crying child of the Lord is given over to the

reflection, the material world, to lord it over [as a worldly enjoyer] … [or]

to give this up in frustration to become one with the Lord [the monistic

path]. Both these stages are dreaming illusions only.95

In the Purañjana narrative, the unknown brāhma

ṇ

a friend (Kṛṣṇa’s

Paramātmā feature) explains that he and Vaidarbhī/Purañjana are like two

swans that have been living together for thousands of years on the lake of

the mind, which is very far away from their original home (the absolute

realm). This metaphor harkens back to the ancient Vedic image of two

friendly birds seated on the same tree, one eating the tree’s fruits (the

individual self) and the other merely witnessing (the Lord in the heart). Of

course, among scholars in this field, it is well known that the verse

beginning with the words “dvā supar

ṇ

ā” (two birds) appears in both the

Muṇḍaka (3.1.1) and the Śvetāśvatara (4.6) Upaniṣad. It is perhaps less

known, however, that this verse originally appeared verbatim in the first

ṇḍ

ala of the Ṛgveda:

dvā supar

ṇ

ā sayujā sakhāyā samāna

ṁ

ṛ

ṣ

ṁ

pari

ṣ

asvajāte

tayor anya

ḥ

pippala

ṁ

svādv atty anaśnann anyo ‘bhicākaśīti

“Two birds, companions and friends, nestle on the very same tree. One of

them eats a tasty fig; the other, not eating, looks on.”96

Commentators point out that this verse describes God accompanying the

soul in all its births. In every type of body, the finite soul and the supreme

soul sit together in the heart; the former tries to enjoy the fruits of the

material body, whereas the latter simply watches and waits for his eternal

friend to remember him.

The Bhāgavata Purāṇa repeatedly speaks of liberation (mukti) as a

remembrance, a returning, a reawakening, a recovery, a restoration.97 Mukti,

according to the Bhāgavata, is not the “construction” of an eternal non-

material form, as some scholars have contended.98 Rather, it is awakening

to that original form—that genuine eternal identity, which has no need of

construction since it has neither beginning nor end. When the dreamer

awakens and the “false” dream body disappears, there is no need for the

construction of a waking-life body. The awake dreamer automatically finds

himself lying in bed in his “original” waking-life body.

When Vaidarbhī regains her original position at the end of the allegory, the
exact words used are na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
ḥ
 sm
ṛ
tim, “that swan regained his
lost memory.”99 This is understood to be a type of “awakening,” granted by
the unknown friend—an awakening that brings the dream of waking life to
an end. And again, the Bhāgavata’s use of terms such as remembering,
regaining, returning, and reawakening to describe coming out of bondage
presupposes an original state of being that had previously been ours, that
was then somehow lost, and that can be ours once more. In the next chapter
we will explore that original state of being as well as māyā’s internal role as
the śakti (energy) that enables Kṛṣṇa (God) to participate in eternal
pastimes of intimate loving exchange with his devotees.
Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal
K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).
© Gopal K. Gupta. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198856993.001.0001
1 Kuang-Ming Wu, The Butterfly as Companion: Meditations on the First
Three Chapters of the Chuang Tzu, (New York: SUNY, 1990).
2 Plato, Theaetetus, 157c. In O’Flaherty, Dreams, Illusion, and Other
Realities, 39.
3 Plato, Theaetetus, 158e. In Dreams, Illusion, and Other Realities.
4 Plato, Republic, 476c d. In ibid.
5 Roger Caillois, “Logical and Philosophical Problems of the Dream,” in
The Dream and Human Societies, ed. Gustave E. von Grunebaum and
Roger Caillois (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1966), 33.
6 Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “The Dream Narrative and the Indian
Doctrine of Illusion,” Daedalus (Proceedings of the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences), vol. 111, no. 3, 1982, 94.
7 Berger, The Veil of Māyā, 80.
8 William Shakespeare, The Tempest (independently published, 2018).
9 BhP 2.9.1–3 trans. based upon Tagare:
ātma-māyām 
ṛ
te rājan parasyānubhavātmana
ḥ
na gha
ṭ
etārtha-sambandha
ḥ
 svapna-dra
ṣṭ
ur ivāñjasā ||1||

bahu-rūpa ivābhāti-māyayā bahu-rūpayā
ramamā
ṇ
o gu
ṇ
e
ṣ
v asyā mamāham iti manyate ||2||
yarhi vāva mahimni sve parasmin kāla-māyayo
ḥ
rameta gata-sammohas tyaktvodāste tadobhayam ||3||
10 BhP 11.17.53.
11 BhP 10.84.24–5.
12 BhP 7.14.3–4:
ś
ṛṇ
van bhagavato ‘bhīk
ṣṇ
am avatāra-kathām
ṛ
ta
ṁ
śraddadhāno yathā kālam upaśānta-janāv
ṛ
ta
ḥ
 ||3||
sat-sa
ṅ
gāc chanakai
ḥ
 sa
ṅ
gam ātma-jāyātmajādi
ṣ
u
vimuñcen mucyamāne
ṣ
u svaya
ṁ
 svapnavad utthita
ḥ
 ||4||
13 BhP 10.21.7–19.
14 The allegory of the City of Nine Gates appears in the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a,
book four, chapter 25–9.
15 Kapila’s Sāṁkhya is described in the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a book three,
chapters 25–32.
16 Bhagavad-gītā 5.13:
sarva-karmā
ṇ
i manasā sannyasyāste sukha
ṁ
 vaśī
nava-dvāre pure dehī naiva kurvan na kārayan ||13||
17 Sā
ṁ
khya-kārikā, verse 35.
18 BhP 4.25.14:
prākāropavanā
ṭṭ
āla-parikhair ak
ṣ
a-tora
ṇ
ai
ḥ
svar
ṇ
a-raupyāyasai
ḥ
 ś
ṛṅ
gai
ḥ
 sa
ṅ
kulā
ṁ
 sarvato g
ṛ
hai
ḥ
 ||14||

19 BhP 4.25.18:

hima-nirjhara-vipru

ṣ

mat-kusumākara-vāyunā

calat-pravāla-vi

ṭ

apa-nalinī-ta

ṭ

a-sampadi ||18||

20 BhP 4.25.20:

yad

ṛ

cchayāgatā

ṁ

tatra dadarśa pramadottamām

ṛ

tyair daśabhir āyāntīm ekaika-śata-nāyakai

ḥ

||20||

21 BhP 4.25.57, 60:

aśnantyā

ṁ

kvacid aśnāti jak

ṣ

atyā

ṁ

saha jak

ṣ

iti ||57||

kvacic ch

ṛṇ

oti ś

ṛṇ

vantyā

ṁ

paśyantyām anu paśyati

kvacij jighrati jighrantyā

ṁ

ṛ

śantyā

ṁ

ṛ

śati kvacit ||60||

22 BhP 4.25.62:

necchann anukaroty ajña

ḥ

klaibyāt krī

ḍ

ā-m

ṛ

go yathā ||62||

23 BhP 4.26.5:

āsurī

ṁ

ṛ

ttim āśritya ghorātmā niranugraha

ḥ

nyahanan niśitair bā

ṇ

air vane

ṣ

u vana-gocarān ||5||

24 BhP 4.26.9:

tatra nirbhinna-gātrā

ṇ

ṁ

citra-vājai

ḥ

śilīmukhai

ḥ

viplavo ‘bhūd du

ḥ

khitānā

ṁ

ḥ

saha

ḥ

karu

ṇ

ātmanām ||9||

25 BhP 4.26.14–16 trans. based upon Tagare::

anta

ḥ

pura-striyo ‘p

ṛ

cchad vimanā iva vedi

ṣ

api va

ḥ

kuśala

ṁ

rāmā

ḥ

seśvarī

ṇ

ṁ

yathā purā ||14||

na tathaitarhi rocante g

ṛ

ṣ

u g

ṛ

ha-sampada

ḥ

yadi na syād g

ṛ

he mātā patnī vā pati-devatā

vya

ṅ

ge ratha iva prājña

ḥ

ko nāmāsīta dīnavat ||15||

kva vartate sā lalanā majjanta

ṁ

vyasanār

ṇ

ave

yā mām uddharate prajñā

ṁ

dīpayantī pade pade ||16||

26 BhP 4.26.17 trans. based upon Tagare::

rāmā ūcu

ḥ

nara nātha na jānīmas tvat priyā yad vyavasyati

bhūtale niravastāre śayānā

ṁ

paśya śatru-han ||17||

27 BhP 4.26.25–6 trans. based upon Tagare::

tan me prasīda suh

ṛ

ḥ

ṛ

ta-kilbi

ṣ

asya

svaira

ṁ

gatasya m

ṛ

gayā

ṁ

vyasanāturasya

kā devara

ṁ

vaśa-gata

ṁ

kusumāstra-vega- visrasta-pau

ṁ

snam uśatī na

bhajeta k

ṛ

tye ||26||

28 BhP 4.27.5 trans. based upon Tagare:

ṣ

ṇ

ārdham iva rājendra vyatikrānta

ṁ

nava

ṁ

vaya

ḥ

||5||

29 BhP 4.28.52–5, trans. based upon Tagare:

kā tva

ṁ

kasyāsi ko vāya

ṁ

śayāno yasya śocasi

jānāsi ki

ṁ

sakhāya

ṁ

mā

ṁ

yenāgre vicacartha ha ||52||

api smarasi cātmānam avijñāta-sakha
ṁ
 sakhe
hitvā mā
ṁ
 padam anvicchan bhauma-bhoga-rato gata
ḥ
 ||53||
ha
ṁ
sāv aha
ṁ
 ca tva
ṁ
 cārya sakhāyau mānasāyanau
abhūtām antarā vauka
ḥ
 sahasra-parivatsarān ||54||
sa tva
ṁ
 vihāya mā
ṁ
 bandho gato grāmya-matir mahīm
vicaran padam adrāk
ṣ
ī
ḥ
 kayācin nirmita
ṁ
 striyā ||55||
30 BhP 4.28.64, trans. based upon Tagare:
eva
ṁ
 sa mānaso ha
ṁ
so ha
ṁ
sena pratibodhita
ḥ
sva-sthas tad-vyabhicāre
ṇ
a na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
ḥ
 sm
ṛ
tim ||64||
31 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xlii.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 BhP 2.6.44.
35 BhP 2.9.10, trans. based upon Tagare:
pravartate yatra rajas tamas tayo
ḥ
 sattva
ṁ
 ca miśra
ṁ
 na ca kāla-
vikrama
ḥ
na yatra māyā kim utāpare harer anuvratā yatra surāsurārcitā
ḥ
 ||10||
36 BhP 10.9.20:
nema
ṁ
 viriñco na bhavo na śrīr apy a
ṅ
ga-sa
ṁ
śrayā
prasāda
ṁ
 lebhire gopī yat tat prāpa vimuktidāt ||20||
37 Also BhP 1.2.25, 1.3.3, 3.15.15, 4.3.23, 4.23.11, 4.30.24, 4.30.41, 5.7.7,
5.20.40, 5.25.10, 6.5.28, 6.14.2, 10.2.34, 10.85.42, 11.15.28.
38 BhP 10.27.4, trans. Bryant:

viśuddha-sattva

ṁ

tava dhāma śānta

ṁ

tapo māyā

ṁ

dhvasta-rajas-

tamaskam

māyā-mayo ‘ya

ṁ

ṇ

a-sampravāho na vidyate te ‘graha

ṇ

ānubandha

ḥ

||4||

39 BhP 8.5.31, trans. based upon Tagare:

ime vaya

ṁ

yat priyayaiva tanvā sattvena s

ṛṣṭ

ā bahir-antar-āvi

ḥ

gati

ṁ

na sūk

ṣ

mām

ṛṣ

ayaś ca vidmahe kuto ‘surādyā itara-pradhānā

ḥ

||31||

40 BhP 10.1.28.

41 BhP 11.31.24.

42 BhP 10.70.5, trans. Bryant:

eka

ṁ

svaya

ṁ

jyotir ananyam avyaya

ṁ

sva-sa

ṁ

sthayā nitya-nirasta-

kalma

ṣ

brahmākhyam asyodbhava-nāśa-hetubhi

ḥ

sva-śaktibhir lak

ṣ

ita-bhāva-

nirv

ṛ

tim ||5||

43 BhP 4.25.57, 58, 60, trans. based upon Tagare:

kvacit pibantyā

ṁ

pibati madirā

ṁ

mada-vihvala

ḥ

aśnantyā

ṁ

kvacid aśnāti jak

ṣ

atyā

ṁ

saha jak

ṣ

iti ||57||

kvacid gāyati gāyantyā

ṁ

rudatyā

ṁ

rudati kvacit

kvacid dhasantyā

ṁ

hasati jalpantyām anu jalpati ||58||

kvacic ch

ṛṇ

oti ś

ṛṇ

vantyā

ṁ

paśyantyām anu paśyati

kvacij jighrati jighrantyā

ṁ

ṛ

śantyā

ṁ

ṛ

śati kvacit ||60||

44 This analogy is from Ka

ṭ

ha Upani

ṣ

ad (1.3.3–4):

ātmāna
ṁ
 rathina
ṁ
 viddhi śarīra
ṁ
 ratham eva ca
buddhi
ṁ
 tu sārathi
ṁ
 viddhi mana
ḥ
 pragraham eva ca ||3||
indriyā
ṇ
i hayān āhur vi
ṣ
ayā
ṁ
s te
ṣ
u gocarān
ātmendriya-mano-yukta
ṁ
 bhoktety āhur manī
ṣ
i
ṇ
a
ḥ
 ||4||
45 Larson, Classical Sā
ṁ
khya, 169. Sā
ṁ
khya-kārikā, verse 19.
46 BhP 4.26.14–16, trans. based upon Tagare.
47 BhP 5.11.5.
48 Sā
ṁ
khya-kārikā, verses 35–6.
49 BhP 3.26.8, trans. based upon Tagare:
kārya-kāra
ṇ
a-kart
ṛ
tve kāra
ṇ
a
ṁ
 prak
ṛ
ti
ṁ
 vidu
ḥ
bhokt
ṛ
tve sukha-du
ḥ
khānā
ṁ
 puru
ṣ
a
ṁ
 prak
ṛ
te
ḥ
 param ||8||
50 BhP 3.31.43, trans. based upon Tagare:
dehena jīva-bhūtena lokāl lokam anuvrajan
bhuñjāna eva karmā
ṇ
i karoty avirata
ṁ
 pumān ||43||
51 Daniel Clement Dennett and Paul Weiner, Consciousness Explained
(Boston; London: Little Brown, 1991), 34.
52 Despite the common misperception, it is important to note that Descartes
did not think that the pineal gland in the brain was an organ sensitive to
both mind and matter and could therefore mediate between them.
Philosophers have now shown that Descartes simply suggested that the
pineal gland was the place where an interaction between mind and matter
took place. As to how the interaction took place, Descartes could not say.
(David Ray Griffin, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality: A
Postmodern Exploration, Suny Series in Constructive Postmodern Thought
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 105.)
53 Griffin, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality, 105.

54 Bhagavad-gītā 18.22, trans. Winthrop Sargeant and Christopher Chapple,

The Bhagavad Gītā, Rev. ed., Suny Series in Cultural Perspectives (Albany:

State University of New York Press, 1984), 18.22:

upadra

ṣṭ

ānumantā ca bhartā bhoktā maheśvara

ḥ

paramātmeti cāpy ukto dehe ‘smin puru

ṣ

ḥ

para

ḥ

||22||

“The highest Spirit in this body is called the witness, the consenter, the

supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord, and also the supreme Spirit

[Supersoul].”

55 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In Danavir

Goswami, Commentaries on 5th Canto Bhagavatam Cosmology by

Vaisnava Acaryas (Kansas City: Rupanuga Vedic College, 2007).

56 Kempis, Imitation of Christ, Book 1, Chapter 19.

57 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 3.26.8. In Viśvanātha Cakravartī

Ṭhākura, Sārārtha Darśinī, Tenth Canto Commentaries Śrīmad

Bhāgavatam, trans. Bhanu Swami (Vrindavan, India: Mahanidhi Swami,

2004).

jīvasya karmabhir eva bandhas te

ṣ

ṁ

karma

ṇ

ṁ

ca sādhane phala-

bhoge ca krame

ṇ

a prak

ṛ

ti-puru

ṣ

āv eva kāra

ṇ

e ity āha—kāryeti |

bhūtendriya-devatādibhir eva karma-siddhes te

ṣ

ṁ

bhūtendriya-

devatānā

ṁ

ca kārya-kāra

ṇ

a-kart

ṛ

tve prak

ṛ

tim eva kāra

ṇ

ṁ

vidu

ḥ

prak

ṛ

tyaiva te

ṣ

ṁ

tad-bhāvasya s

ṛṣṭ

atvāj jīvasya karma-kāra

ṇ

ṁ

māyādhīnam ity artha

ḥ

| karma-phala-dātā ca parameśvara eveti jīvasya

karma-phala-bhokt

ṛ

tvam īśvarādhīnam evety āha—bhokt

ṛ

tva

ṁ

jīvasya

karma-phalānā

ṁ

bhoge puru

ṣ

ṁ

kāra

ṇ

ṁ

vidur ity anvaya

ḥ

||8||

58 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In Fifth Canto Commentaries

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, ed. Danavir Goswami (Vrindavan, India: Rasa-

biharilal and Sons, 2004).

nanu mat-kāryatvād acid api jagan mamaivākāro m

ṛ

d-gha

ṭ

ādivat tatra

jagad ida

ṁ

na vastutas tvat-kārya

ṁ

, kintu māyā-kāryam ity āha—karotīti |

yasyek

ṣ

itur jīvārtham īpsita

ṁ

atyantānicchāyā

ṁ

īk

ṣ

ṇ

a-yogāt | svārtha

ṁ

tu nepsita

ṁ

, viśva-sthityādi sva-gu

ṇ

air māyayaiva karoti | tasyā

ḍ

atve’pi īśvara-sannidhānāt prav

ṛ

tti

ṁ

ṛṣṭ

āntenāha—yathā loha

ḥ

grāvno’yaskāntād dhetor bhramati tad-āśraya

ṁ

tad-abhimukha

ṁ

sat, ato

ṇ

ānā

ṁ

karma

ṇ

ṁ

jīvād

ṛṣṭ

ānā

ṁ

ca sāk

ṣ

ṇ

e tasmai tubhya

ṁ

nama

ḥ

||38||

59 Śrīdhara Svāmin’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In Goswami, Fifth Canto

Commentaries:

tad eva

ṁ

nirgu

ṇ

a-rūpe

ṇ

a natvā parameśvara-rūpe

ṇ

a pra

ṇ

amati, karotīti |

yasyek

ṣ

itur jīvārtham īpsitam | atyantānicchāyām īk

ṣ

ṇ

āyogāt | svārtha

ṁ

tu nepsitam | viśva-sthity-ādi-sva-gu

ṇ

air māyā karoti | tasyā

ḍ

atvepīśvara-sannidhānāt prav

ṛ

tti

ṁ

ṛṣṭ

āntenāha—yathā’yo loha

ṁ

grāv

ṇ

o’yaskāntān nimittād bhramati | tad-āśraya

ṁ

tad-abhimukha

ṁ

sat |

ato gu

ṇ

ānā

ṁ

karma

ṇ

ṁ

jīvād

ṛṣṭ

ānā

ṁ

ca sāk

ṣ

ṇ

e tasmai te nama

ḥ

||38||

60 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s comments on BhP 5.18.38. In ibid.

61 Kapila’s Sāṁkhya is described in the Bhāgavata Purā

ṇ

a book three,

chapters 25–32.

62 BhP 7.9.43.

63 BhP 4.25.33, 34, 36, 37, trans. based upon Tagare:

na vidāma vaya

ṁ

samyak kartāra

ṁ

puru

ṣ

abha

ātmanaś ca parasyāpi gotra

ṁ

nāma ca yat-k

ṛ

tam ||33||

ihādya santam ātmāna

ṁ

vidāma na tata

ḥ

param

yeneya

ṁ

nirmitā vīra purī śara

ṇ

am ātmana

ḥ

||34||

ṣṭ

yāgato ‘si bhadra

ṁ

te grāmyān kāmān abhīpsase

udvahi

ṣ

yāmi tā

ṁ

s te ‘ha

ṁ

sva-bandhubhir arindama ||36||

imā

ṁ

tvam adhiti

ṣṭ

hasva purī

ṁ

nava-mukhī

ṁ

vibho

mayopanītān g

ṛ

ṇ

āna

ḥ

kāma-bhogān śata

ṁ

samā

ḥ

||37||

64 Sā
ṁ
khya-kārikā, verses 35–6. Trans. Larson, Classical Sā
ṁ
khya.
65 The Bhāgavata refers to lust (kāma) as the knot in the heart (h
ṛ
daya-
granthi): 3.24.4, 5.5.8, 5.25.8, 11.3.47.
66 BhP 5.5.
67 BhP 3.31.40–2:
yopayāti śanair māyā yo
ṣ
id deva-vinirmitā ||40||
yā
ṁ
 manyate pati
ṁ
 mohān man-māyām 
ṛṣ
abhāyatīm
strītva
ṁ
 strī-sa
ṅ
gata
ḥ
 prāpto vittāpatya-g
ṛ
ha-pradam ||41||
tām ātmano vijānīyāt paty-apatya-g
ṛ
hātmakam
daivopasādita
ṁ
 m
ṛ
tyu
ṁ
 m
ṛ
gayor gāyana
ṁ
 yathā ||42||
68 BhP 5.11.10:
gandhāk
ṛ
ti-sparśa-rasa-śravā
ṁ
si visarga-raty-arty-abhijalpa-śilpā
ḥ
ekādaśa
ṁ
 svīkara
ṇ
a
ṁ
 mameti śayyām aha
ṁ
 dvādaśam eka āhu
ḥ
 ||10||
69 BhP 4.29.35, 5.11.5.
70 Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, “Karma and Rebirth in the Vedas and
Purāṇas,” in Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, ed. Wendy
Doniger O’Flaherty (India: Motilal Banarsidass, 1999), 16.
71 Larson, Classical Sā
ṁ
khya, 186.
72 BhP 2.10.30, 3.26.27, 11.2.38, 11.11.14, 11.13.9–11, 11.15.26, 12.6.30–1.
73 BhP 11.13.9:
aham ity anyathā-buddhi
ḥ
 pramattasya yathā h
ṛ
di
utsarpati rajo ghora
ṁ
 tato vaikārika
ṁ
 mana
ḥ
 ||9||
BhP 11.13.10:
rajo-yuktasya manasa
ḥ
 sa
ṁ
kalpa
ḥ
 sa vikalpaka
ḥ

tata

ḥ

kāmo gu

ṇ

a-dhyānād du

ḥ

saha

ḥ

syād dhi durmate

ḥ

||10||

BhP 11.13.11:

karoti kāma-vaśa-ga

ḥ

karmā

ṇ

y avijitendriya

ḥ

khodarkā

ṇ

i sampaśyan rajo-vega-vimohita

ḥ

||11||

74 BhP 11.13.12:

rajas-tamobhyā

ṁ

yad api vidvān-vik

ṣ

ipta-dhī

ḥ

puna

ḥ

atandrito mano yuñjan do

ṣ

a-d

ṛṣṭ

ir na sajjate ||12||

75 BhP 11.25.16:

yadā citta

ṁ

prasīdeta indriyā

ṇ

ṁ

ca nirv

ṛ

ḥ

dehe ‘bhaya

ṁ

mano-’sa

ṅ

ṁ

tat sattva

ṁ

viddhi mat padam ||16||

76 BhP 11.25.17:

vikurvan kriyayā cādhīr aniv

ṛ

ttiś ca cetasām

gātrāsvāsthya

ṁ

mano bhrānta

ṁ

raja etair niśāmaya ||17||

77 BhP 11.25.18:

sīdac citta

ṁ

vilīyeta cetaso graha

ṇ

e ‘k

ṣ

amam

mano na

ṣṭ

ṁ

tamo glānis tamas tad upadhāraya ||18||

78 BhP 7.2.24:

eva

ṁ

ṇ

air bhrāmyamā

ṇ

e manasy avikala

ḥ

pumān

yāti tat-sāmyatā

ṁ

bhadre hy ali

ṅ

go li

ṅ

gavān iva ||24||

79 BhP 11.23.45–6 trans Goswami, H.:
anīha ātmā manasā samīhatā hira
ṇ
-mayo mat-sakha udvica
ṣṭ
e
mana
ḥ
 sva-li
ṅ
ga
ṁ
 parig
ṛ
hya kāmān ju
ṣ
an nibaddho gu
ṇ
a-sa
ṅ
gato ‘sau
||45||
dāna
ṁ
 sva-dharmo niyamo yamaś ca śruta
ṁ
 ca karmā
ṇ
i ca sad-vratāni
sarve mano-nigraha lak
ṣ
a
ṇ
āntā
ḥ
 paro hi yogo manasa
ḥ
 samādhi
ḥ
 ||46||
80 BhP 4.8.77:
sarvato mana āk
ṛṣ
ya h
ṛ
di bhūtendriyāśayam
dhyāyan bhagavato rūpa
ṁ
 nādrāk
ṣ
īt kiñcanāparam ||77||
81 Eliade and Trask, Yoga: Immortality and Freedom, 384n.
82 BhP 4.29.74–5:
anena puru
ṣ
o dehān upādatte vimuñcati
har
ṣ
a
ṁ
 śoka
ṁ
 bhaya
ṁ
 du
ḥ
kha
ṁ
 sukha
ṁ
 cānena vindati ||75||
83 Deussen, The Philosophy of the Upanishads, 298.
84 Ibid., 299.
85 Ibid., 300.
86 B
ṛ
hadāra
ṇ
yaka Upani
ṣ
ad, 4.3.18.
87 B
ṛ
hadāra
ṇ
yaka, 4.3.15.
88 B
ṛ
hadāra
ṇ
yaka, 4.3.16.
89 BhP 4.6.53–4.
90 BhP 5.11.12:
k
ṣ
etrajña etā manaso vibhūtīr jīvasya māyā-racitasya nityā
ḥ
āvirhitā
ḥ
 kvāpi tirohitāś ca śuddho vica
ṣṭ
e hy aviśuddha-kartu
ḥ
 ||12||

91 BhP 5.11.7:
tāvān aya
ṁ
 vyavahāra
ḥ
 sadāvi
ḥ
 k
ṣ
etrajña-sāk
ṣ
yo bhavati sthūla-
sūk
ṣ
ma
ḥ
tasmān mano li
ṅ
gam ado vadanti gu
ṇ
āgu
ṇ
atvasya parāvarasya ||7||
92 BhP 5.11.5.
93 BhP 4.29.35.
94 BhP 4.28.53.
95 Bhaktivedānta Swami, Srimad Bhagavatam, 2.9.1, Purport (Los Angeles:
BBT, 1988).
96 
Ṛ
gveda 1.164.20. Translation by Olivelle, The Early Upani
ṣ
ads.
97 BhP 4.28.64, 7.14.3–4.
98 Barbara A. Holdrege, “Body,” in Studying Hinduism: Key Concepts and
Methods, ed. Sushil Mittal and Gene R. Thursby (London: Routledge,
2008), 34.
99 BhP 4.28.64.

Māyā’s Role in the Absolute Realm

The Architect of Kṛṣṇa’s Delights

As has been well-discussed in the first four chapters of this book, the

Bhāgavata Purāna covers knowledge about the following general topics: (1)

the nature of God (Kṛṣṇa); (2) the nature of the puru

ṣ

as (jīvātman)—the

individual selves that are Kṛṣṇa’s eternal infinitesimal emanations (like

particles of rays emanating from the sun); and (3) the nature of both the

temporal and the absolute realms in which the various categories of living

beings reside.

In the Bhāgavata, of course, each of the above three topics opens up to a

variety of other topics, the most important of which concerns the

relationship between Kṛṣṇa and the individual selves, which commentators

such as Jiva Goswamin have analyzed in terms of both type and

development as follows: (1) sambandha, the nature of that relationship; (2)

abhidheya, the activity pertaining to that relationship; and (3) prayojana,

the fruit or object of that relational activity.1

In Chapter 3 we discussed māyā’s involvement in the production of the

temporal realm, which is said to exist for those that desire to live in

forgetfulness of God. And in Chapter 4 we discussed māyā’s role as the

deluding power that covers the memory of such souls and causes them to

identify as products of matter, living in the temporal realm.

In this chapter we will explore the other side of the coin—i.e., the absolute

realm that is said to be a transformation of yoga-māyā, Kṛṣṇa’s own yogic

energy, meaning the realm in which Kṛṣṇa personally resides along with

his loving associates: those souls that want to live in full knowledge and

remembrance of Kṛṣṇa (sambandha), that have chosen loving devotional

service (bhakti) as the means (abhidheya), and that have found complete

fulfillment and unlimited joy in unconditionally dedicating themselves to

Kṛṣṇa’s happiness (prayojana). However, before journeying into that

divine realm, we must first develop a more nuanced understanding of the

term bhakti.

In Viraha Bhakti, Friedhelm Hardy posits that the Bhāgavata presents two

distinct forms of bhakti: “normative bhakti” (“quiet contemplation”) and

“emotional bhakti” (an intense form of bhakti, directed toward Kṛṣṇa).2 In

Hardy’s view, while the normative form is found in the Bhagavad-gītā, the

Bhāgavata’s emotional form is not found in that work. While this

understanding of the Gītā’s presentation of bhakti seems largely correct,

there are nonetheless a small number of Gītā verses that hint at something

more than mere “quiet contemplation.”

Within the Bhakti traditions, there is the common understanding that

because God is absolute, he is present in descriptions of his names, forms,

qualities, activities, and words. Thus it is said that when sincere bhakti

practitioners gather together to recite, discuss, and exchange ideas, Kṛṣṇa

becomes directly manifest, quickening feelings of ecstatic love

accompanied by shivering of the body, flows of tears from the eyes, and

other such symptoms. In the Gītā’s tenth chapter, Kṛṣṇa appears to describe

such bhaktas, declaring that their thoughts dwell in him, their lives are

completely dedicated to him, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss

(tu

ṣ

yanti ca ramanti) by always speaking of him and exchanging

realizations.3 Apart from this, in the eleventh chapter, after seeing Kṛṣṇa’s

universal form, Arjuna speaks of the intimacy and casualness of his own

friendship with Kṛṣṇa, and he does so in terms that sound much like

descriptions of the more intimate and spontaneous forms of bhakti found in

the Bhāgavata.4 Regardless of what one may think of Hardy’s

normative/emotional division, which certainly has its discursive merits, a

brief exploration of what the Bhāgavata itself has to say about levels and

types of bhakti will likely garner tremendous reward.

For the purposes of this discussion, we here define bhakti, in the simplest of

terms, as “devotion.” In this regard, from its very start, the Bhāgavata draws

a distinction between alloyed and unalloyed bhakti. On the alloyed side

stand forms of devotion to Kṛṣṇa (God) that are practiced with a selfish

motive in mind. These can be viewed as bhakti mixed with one or more of a

multitude of self-centered aims—i.e., devotion that is tinged with the desire

for profit, adoration, distinction, material gain, knowledge, power, the

avoidance of suffering, and even liberation from material bondage and

illusion. All these bhakti admixtures fall short of the Bhāgavata’s lofty

standards because they are tinged—regardless of how slightly—with

impure motivations and desires.5 In contrast, unalloyed forms of devotion

to Kṛṣṇa are unmixed, unadulterated, and pure—i.e., bhakti that is entirely

devoid of selfish motivation and that cannot be disturbed by any

impediment.6 In such a pure devotional state, the only motive that remains

is the desire to please Kṛṣṇa.

In the Bhāgavata’s third book, Kapiladeva divides these mixed forms of

bhakti into three categories based upon the gu

ṇ

as: devotion in darkness,

which is expressed by those whose bhakti remains tainted by lower qualities

such as envy, pride, anger, violence, etc; devotion in passion, which is

expressed by those whose bhakti is tainted by the desire for material

enjoyment, fame, power, opulence, etc; and devotion in goodness, which is

expressed by those whose bhakti is tainted by the desire for higher

knowledge and liberation from material bondage and suffering.7 In all these

cases, the so-called bhakta wants something in return for services rendered.

But what of those that are purely devoted to Kṛṣṇa? Kapiladeva

distinguishes them by pointing out their spontaneous attraction for hearing

and speaking about the qualities, activities, and characteristics of the Lord,

who is said to reside in the hearts of all. Kapiladeva notes that just as the

Ganges river flows inexorably to the sea, so does the attraction of the purely

devoted flow inexorably toward Kṛṣṇa; no worldly condition or attraction

can impede its spontaneous course.8 He also notes that the purely devoted

reject not only all types of material benefit, but all types of liberation as

well.9 In other words, according to the Bhāgavata, those that have achieved

the level of unalloyed bhakti ask nothing of Kṛṣṇa save the continued

opportunity to be engaged in his loving service. They do not desire relief

from the cycle of birth and death, nor do they fear any condition of life. For

them, heaven, hell, and liberation are exactly the same.10

To summarize, in the Bhāgavata we find alloyed types of bhakti that are

motivated by multi-desires for material reward, and we also find unalloyed

types of bhakti that are motivated only by the desire to please Kṛṣṇa. The

aim of this chapter is to explore unalloyed forms of bhakti: spontaneous

attraction to Kṛṣṇa’s service, leading ultimately to the perfection of prema,

pure love of God. Before doing so, however, there is one more nuance in

the Bhāgavata’s bhakti taxonomy that needs to be discussed. It concerns the

nature of unalloyed bhakti itself, which is differently displayed by two types

of unalloyed devotees: (1) those that are fully aware of Kṛṣṇa as God, and

who thus exhibit awe and veneration for his greatness, always remembering

their position of subordination to the Lord; and (2) those that are drawn to

the qualities, charm, and beauty of Kṛṣṇa as K

ṛṣṇ

a, and who thus become

involved with him in a form of intimate spontaneous loving exchange that

is completely free and open—unhindered (per yoga-māyā’s arrangement)

by cognizance of Kṛṣṇa’s status as the supreme being, the origin of all, and

so forth.

Although the Bhāgavata does not appear to provide concise definitions of

these two flavors of unalloyed devotion, both are vividly on display

throughout the work. The first, awe and veneration, which is said to be

found in both the temporal and the absolute (Vaikuṇṭha) realm, is

exemplified in the discourses, tales, and prayers of such Vaiṣṇava notables

as Kuntī (first book), Brahmā (second book), Devahutī (third book), Dhruva

(fourth book), Citraketu/Vṛtrāsura (sixth book), Prahlāda (seventh book),

Bali (eighth book) and Ambarīṣa (ninth book), as well as in descriptions of

Vaikuṇṭha found in the Bhāgavata’s third book.

The second, intimate spontaneous loving exchange, is found within Goloka

Vṛndāvana, the highest planet of the absolute realm, where Kṛṣṇa is said to

personally enjoy in Vraja with his confidential servants, friends, parents,

and conjugal lovers. The Bhāgavata dedicates a good portion of its tenth

book (the largest book of all) to descriptions of this realm—or, more

precisely, its non-different facsimile here on earth. Within the pages of this

tenth book we encounter tales of the residents of Vṛndāvana, who are

involved in intimate loving relations with Kṛṣṇa—devotees such as Nanda,

Yaśodā, Śubala, Sudama, the gopīs (cowherd maidens), and so on.

In this way, the Bhāgavata’s tenth book introduces the reader to the highest

form of bhakti wherein Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā intentionally causes these

unique souls to forget that he is God so that they may nurture, protect, and

even punish “naughty” Kṛṣṇa as his parent; laugh, play, joke, and even

defeat Kṛṣṇa in mock fighting as his friend; or caress, embrace, and even

reproach Kṛṣṇa in dealings of amorous love as his paramour. The text

makes clear that this form of intimate spontaneous loving exchange is the

highest attainment available to any living being, achieved by only the most

exalted devotees of Kṛṣṇa.

Now that we have developed a more nuanced taxonomy of bhakti, let us

explore some of these tenth book descriptions of Kṛṣṇa’s dealings in

Vṛndāvana, where Māyā—in her role as Yogā-māyā—transforms into

Kṛṣṇa’s realm and serves as the architect of Kṛṣṇa’s delights.

Kṛṣṇa and His Mother, Yaśodā

The first forty chapters of the Bhāgavata’s tenth book contain numerous

accounts of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā in earthly Vṛndāvana (the earthly counterpart of

Goloka Vṛndāvana), where he eternally resides along with the vraja-vāsīs

(his most intimate devotees). Although it is far beyond the scope of this

work to examine all these accounts, in what follows we at least discuss

several of the more prominent narratives. We can begin with an analysis of

the renowned incident in which Kṛṣṇa affords his mother a glimpse of his

universal form—a narrative that is worth recounting in full since it

incorporates many of the themes we discuss in this book: dreams, illusions,

forgetfulness, and the temporal realm. The following is a paraphrasing of

this tale:

Once, when Kṛṣṇa and Balarāma were playing with their friends, all the

boys joined Balarāma to complain to Kṛṣṇa’s mother, Yaśodā, that Kṛṣṇa

had eaten clay. With great concern for her son’s welfare, Yaśodā catches

hold of Kṛṣṇa’s hand, and lifting him into her lap, sternly inquires as to

why the naughty boy had secretly eaten clay: “Do you deny the claim that

has been made against you by all your playmates, including your elder

brother”?

Fearful of Yaśodā’s displeasure, Kṛṣṇa insists that the accusations of his

brother and friends are completely false; he has certainly not eaten clay, and

if his mother disbelieves him, he suggests that she herself look into his

mouth. At this, Yaśodā challenges Kṛṣṇa—whose supremacy cannot be

constrained, who is God himself in the form of a human boy—to open his

mouth.

When so ordered by his mother, Kṛṣṇa dutifully opens his mouth, and

although he does not wish to disturb Yaśodā’s parental affection, the child’s

opulences become automatically manifest as his mother peers inside. There,

within that tiny aperture, Yaśodā beholds all moving and nonmoving

entities, outer space, and all directions, along with mountains, islands,

oceans, the surface of the earth, the planetary systems, the moon, the stars,

the wind, fire, air, sky and creation, along with senses, mind, perception,

and the three qualities goodness, passion and darkness. But this is not the

end. She further beholds the time allotted to the living entities, desire, the

reactions of karma, and on and on. Finally, in the midst of it all, she sees

herself and Vṛndāvana-dhāma within that mystical mouth, and thus

becomes bewildered as to the position of her son.

Struck with wonder, Yaśodā begins to question whether she is witnessing a

dream, an illusory creation of māyā, the confusion of her own intelligence

—or, in fact, some inherent divine power of her dearmost son. In a mood of

deep veneration, she begins to offer homage to Him who is beyond the

conception of human speculation, the mind, activities, words and

arguments, and who is the original cause and maintainer of the cosmos. By

Kṛṣṇa’s grace, Mother Yaśodā could understand that she is his eternal

subordinate, that he is her ultimate shelter, and that it is only due to māyā’s

influence that she considers Nanda Mahārāja her husband, Kṛṣṇa her son,

the cows and calves her possessions, and all the cowherd men and ladies

her subjects.

Understanding his mother’s absorption in high philosophical contemplation,

the omnipotent supreme master, by the influence of yoga-māyā, inspires her

to once again become immersed in intense maternal affection for him.

Immediately, all such contemplations fly from Yaśodā’s memory. With a

heart overflowing with intense love, she takes Kṛṣṇa on her lap as before,

returning to her previous state of mind. In this way, she considers Hari,

whose glories are sung by the three Vedas, the Upaniṣads, Sān˙khya yoga,

and the Sātvata sages, to be her very own son.11

When Kṛṣṇa’s mother peers into her son’s mouth to see if he has eaten

clay, she is confronted with Kṛṣṇa’s astounding universal form, which

encompasses all subtle and gross aspects of the cosmos (see Figure 5.1).

However, what astounds her most amidst all this wonder is seeing herself

sitting with her son in Vraja, for this calls into question her common sense

understanding of reality. Thus she begins to consider that her life as a

mother, wife, and queen may be nothing more than an illusion, and also

comes to question her son’s true identity and nature. Kṛṣṇa, however,

covers Yaśodā’s consciousness, memory, and perceptions with his yoga-

māyā immediately after this vision, so she can again view him as her little

child in maternal love.

image

Figure 5.1 When Kṛṣṇa’s mother Yaśodā peers into her son’s mouth to see

if he has eaten clay, she sees Kṛṣṇa’s astounding universal form and amidst

all this wonder she sees herself sitting with her son in Vraja.

Here one might argue that Yaśodā finally encounters “real reality” for the

few moments that she beholds the universal form in her son’s mouth, and

then lives the remainder of her life in the illusion that she is Kṛṣṇa’s

mother. The Bhāgavata, however, upholds the opposite view, meaning that

it upholds Yaśodā’s māyā-influenced perception that Kṛṣṇa is her son as

the pinnacle of reality, since it allows for the exchange of spontaneous love

between Kṛṣṇa and his devotee. Indeed, as already noted above, bhakti in

awe and veneration, which focuses on God’s majesty, is considered inferior

because it obstructs the uninhibited flow of this most intimate form of love.

And since Yaśodā is Kṛṣṇa’s mother eternally, her relationship with Kṛṣṇa

is not merely her private reality; it is rather ultimate reality (yoga-māyā’s

involvement notwithstanding). Indeed, far from describing Yaśodā’s

motherhood as being based on an illusion, the Bhāgavata repeatedly accords

her a status that is above even the gods and yogīs: “Neither Brahmā, nor

Śiva, nor even Śrī, the Goddess of Fortune … obtained the benediction

which the Gopī [Yaśodā] obtained from Kṛṣṇa, the giver of liberation.”12

The reason, of course, concerns the status of Yaśodā’s intimate spontaneous

love for Kṛṣṇa, who the Bhāgavata regards as God in his original form.13

In majestic forms such as Viṣṇu, Kṛṣṇa displays his opulence (aiśvarya)

and creates all the worlds; but in his original form, Kṛṣṇa displays the

charm, beauty, and sweetness (mādhurya) that represents the most complete

and intimate feature of God.

There is, however, one curious aspect of this narrative that requires

explanation. By the arrangement of Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā, and with the aim

of intimate loving exchange, Yaśodā accepts Kṛṣṇa as her little son. Then,

again by yoga-māyā’s arrangment, she obtains a glimpse of Kṛṣṇa’s

universal form, which completely overturns that view, and awakens

realizations that challenge her conception of reality. At the end, however,

this overturning is undone by yoga-māyā, who removes all vestiges of the

incident from Yaśodā’s memory and returns her to her former state of

consciousness as child Kṛṣṇa’s mother. Apparently, then, Yaśodā herself

gained nothing from the experience. What, then, was the point?

It is here, in the answer to this question, that we encounter the soteriological

aim not only of this līlā, but of the Bhāgavata itself. Yaśodā’s momentary

experience of the universal form was never intended to permanently alter

her motherly perspective, conceived by the Bhāgavata to be the most

exalted conception of reality one can achieve. Rather, the līlā is intended to

challenge, and hopefully alter, the perspective of the potential reader.

Indeed, from the very beginning of the Bhāgavata and throughout its twelve

books, Vyāsa makes clear again and again that it is through descriptions of

God’s name, form, qualities and activities that the bound of this world can

become purified, enlightened, and free. That is the fundamental aim of the

text; it is first and foremost intended for the spiritual upliftment of its

reciters, hearers, and readers. This view is reinforced by the Bhāgavata’s

declaration that a prime reason for Kṛṣṇa’s descent and performance of līlā

is to turn the worldly-minded back toward him.14 Given this well-

established aim of both the Bhāgavata and Bhagavān Kṛṣṇa, let us examine

just two of the ways in which the above narrative confers spiritual benefit.

Firstly, the narrative introduces us to Kṛṣṇa as God, whose limitless energy

(māyā) makes all things possible: within the tiny opening of child Kṛṣṇa’s

mouth his mother sees the entire cosmos and all subtle and gross existences,

including herself, seated as she is, with her son on her lap. And secondly,

the narrative enables us to glimpse the tender, charming dealings of Kṛṣṇa

as Kṛṣṇa, the eternal cowherd boy of Vṛndavana, while never letting us

forget that this is no ordinary child. The narrative serves to remind us that

although Kṛṣṇa acts like an ordinary human being, he nonetheless retains

his divinity in all circumstances, and can employ his unlimited potencies

whenever and in whatever way he likes.

Yaśodā Binds Kṛṣṇa with Rope

Another quite famous tenth book narrative highlights not only the

paradoxical nature of Kṛṣṇa as God, but also the playfully loving nature of

Kṛṣṇa as K

ṛṣṇ

a. It is the ninth chapter tale of Kṛṣṇa being bound with

rope:15

When Yaśodā interrupts the feeding of Kṛṣṇa to attend to a problem in the

kitchen, her little child becomes annoyed, breaks a container of yogurt, and

hides inside the house, eating from a pot of freshly churned butter. When

Yaśodā returns to the courtyard she immediately spots the broken pot. But

where is rascal Kṛṣṇa? Searching, Yaśodā soon finds him sitting atop a

wooden grinding mortar, handing out her stock of yogurt and butter to the

monkeys, while anxiously anticipating inevitable rebuke. Yaśodā quietly

advances toward Kṛṣṇa with stick in hand, but Kṛṣṇa notices and begins to

flee here and there in fear of his mother.

With some difficulty Yaśodā finally captures Kṛṣṇa, but upon seeing his

beautiful tearful face, she throws aside the stick and opts for a milder form

of punishment: roping Kṛṣṇa to the grinding mortar to prevent further

misdoings and possible self-harm. However, when she proceeds to wrap the

rope around Kṛṣṇa’s waist, it is short by two fingers, leaving her task

incomplete. This occurs not once, not twice, but again and again and again!

Regardless of the number of strands Yaśodā attaches to the original, she is

unable to reach the rope around Kṛṣṇa’s entire waist; it is always short by

two fingers. Finally, seeing Yaśodā straining under the effort, Kṛṣṇa

complies out of love, allowing his mother to bind him.16

Śukadeva Gosvāmī, who narrates this tale to King Parīkṣit, clearly enjoys

the paradoxical nature of this līlā, pausing regularly to take note of the

irony. He notes that although great yogīs, whose minds are directed by the

power of asceticism, cannot capture the supreme, Yaśodā is able to do so by

the yoga of spontaneous motherly love.17 Moreover, he explains, she

succeeds in binding that supreme being who has neither a beginning nor an

end, neither a within nor a without.18 Kṛṣṇa’s own behavior is the most

paradoxical of all. He is anxious about being caught, he cries when scolded

by his mother, and he is guilty for having broken the rules—all as if he were

a common being. Indeed, all these impossibilities are said to be made

possible through the agency of yoga-māyā. By her power, the infinite can

be measured, and the limitless becomes limited. He who is self-satisfied

desires butter, the embodiment of bliss cries in distress, and the refuge of

the world runs in fear. The transcendent Lord is caught by his mother’s

hand, and the all-pervading controller is tied down by a rope. Ultimately,

Kṛṣṇa is said to demonstrate through this līlā “the quality of submission to

his devotee… despite the fact that he is only constrained by his own free

will.”19 As Bhattacharya notes, yoga-māyā “is the power by which

Bhagavān can be simultaneously unlimited and limited. Yoga-māyā

provides for the expression of the free creativity of the Absolute, the

enjoyment of [his] own ecstasy. In other words, it is the principle that

makes for the sports of the divine.”20

The remainder of this chapter largely deals with the loving exchange

between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs (cowherd maidens) of Vraja, considered by

the Bhāgavata’s commentators to be the most sacred as well as the most

easily misunderstood aspect of the Bhāgavata. Thus, before examining

these sacrosanct topics, it would be good to prepare ourselves by

appreciating how the rāsa-līlā has been understood by the Bhāgavata

commentators and traditions.

Distinguishing Love from Lust, the

Object from Its Reflection

Two key Bhāgavata notions will be discussed below: (1) the notion of the

absolute realm as “the object” and the temporal realm as “the reflection;”

and (2) the notion of love as opposed to lust. Gaining a better understanding

of the Bhāgavata’s perspective on these two conceptions should lay the

groundwork for discussions on the relationship between Kṛṣṇa and the

gopīs.

In a previous chapter we briefly noted that the Bhāgavata several times

employs the simile of reflection (ābhāsa) to illustrate the relation—and the

distinction—between the absolute and the temporal realm, with the former

being the object and the latter being the reflection.21 Here we intend to

revisit this simile in far greater detail, and with a particular purpose in mind.

Oxford Living Dictionaries defines a reflection as “an image seen in a

mirror or shiny surface.”22 In terms of the discussion at hand, we focus on

one particular image. Imagine a crystal-clear lake on a cloudless, sunny

day; imagine that just on the shore of that lake stands an old oak tree, with

its root system partially exposed. Looking into the lake on such a day, one

finds an almost perfect reflection of that tree—a temporary manifestation

that will endure only so long as the sun continues to remain in a particular

position in the sky. But there is a peculiarity about this image, which is here

important to note: looking toward the tree and its image from the opposite

shore, we can see that the reflected tree is inverted, meaning that the shore

tree’s top appears as the reflected tree’s bottom, and the shore tree’s bottom

appears as the reflected tree’s top. In other words, from top to bottom and

everywhere in between, the reflected tree is a reverse image of the shore

tree.

This phenomenon is used analogically by Vaiṣṇava commentators to help

us understand the relation between the absolute and the temporal realm,

much as did Plato’s comparison of objects and their shadows. Here there are

three important things to note. The first is that all the forms in the reflection

—the roots, trunk, branches, twigs, perhaps a couple of birds sitting in the

tree—did not just arise from nothing. Everything in the reflected tree is

there because—and only because—it is there in the shore tree—the shore

tree being in every meaningful way the basis of the reflected tree. Again,

the reflected tree did not just appear from nothing, nor could it exist with

nothing as its basis. Indeed, a knowledgeable person, seeing only the

reflected tree, would logically presume the existence of the shore tree. The

second is that the reflected tree is a short-lived, temporary phenomenon,

whereas the shore tree continues to exist long after the reflected tree has

disappeared. And the third is that all the values of the shore tree are

reversed in the reflected tree—i.e., the highest values in the shore tree

constitute the lowest values in the reflected tree.

At this point, the analogy should be relatively clear. The existence of the

temporal realm—its particular appearance, forms, relationships, and so on

—is based upon the existence of an absolute realm of which it is a

reflection. How can we know that the temporal realm is a reflection? The

Bhāgavata answers because of its temporary nature. How do we know it is

based on a more permanent reality? In the same way we know that the

existence of the reflected tree signals the existence of the shore tree.

A key statement in this regard comes from the Bhagavad-gītā, chapter two,

verse sixteen, where Kṛṣṇa defines the nonexistent as that which has no

endurance and the existent as that which has no cessation.23 In other words,

the prime characteristic of that which is fundamentally existent is that it is

perpetual, never-ending, unceasing, beyond the grip of time, while the

prime characteristic of that which is fundamentally non-existent is that it is

unenduring, ephemeral, terminable, under the grip of time. Put differently,

and to drive home the point once more, that which is said to be existent is

beginningless, endless, and manifest forever, whereas that which is said to

be non-existent has a beginning and an end—it becomes manifest, remains

for some time, and eventually vanishes (like the reflection of the tree at

some point in the course of a 24-hour day).

This definition highlights an important limitation of the reflected-tree

analogy relative to the relationship it is attempting to describe. The problem

is this: in the analogy, the reflected tree is temporary, but its basis, the shore

tree, is also ultimately temporary, and thus must be a reflection as well, as

per the above definition. To avoid an infinite regress, one must posit that the

absolute realm and all that it contains has neither beginning nor end. And

indeed, this is precisely what the Bhāgavata claims: the temporal realm

appears as it does (with its particular forms, objects, creatures, and so on)

because it is a reflection of an absolute counterpart—a beginningless

alternate universe, one might say. Moreover, the relationships between

humans in the temporal realm—between parents and children, friends and

friends, husbands and wives, lovers and lovers, and so on—appear as they

do because they are reflections of the relationships in that beginningless

counterpart—a counterpart from which there is nowhere to regress.

The final point of this analogical explanation requires that we return once

more to the shore of that lake and recall that from top to bottom and

everywhere in between, the reflected tree is a reverse image of the shore

tree. This feature of the reflection is used to indicate that the values of the

temporal realm are inverted reflections (reverse images) of those that

subsist in the absolute realm, with the highest values of the absolute realm

manifesting as the lowest values of the temporal realm.

Following along these lines, it is not difficult to understand that the pure

love of the absolute realm—the highest pinnacle of love of God—will

naturally resemble its reflected counterpart in the temporal realm (how

could it be otherwise?). Yet, according to the Bhāgavata, there is a world of

difference between the two—a difference that the Bhāgavata wants us to

particularly understand with respect to the love of the gopīs for Kṛṣṇa and

his love for them. Like the inverted values of the tree reflected in the water,

that which constitutes the “top-most” expression of selfless love in the

absolute realm is said to constitute the “bottom-most” form of selfish lust

(and immoral betrayal) in the temporal realm.

This brings us to the second topic mentioned at the beginning of this

section: the need to draw a distinction between the love of the absolute

realm (which in its highest expression can superficially appear like lust) and

the lust of the temporal realm (which is often misleadingly identified as

love).

While the gopīs’ expression of ecstatic love for Kṛṣṇa and his expression

of love for them may superficially appear like the lustful dealings of this

world, commentators tell us that there is a vast difference between the two.

Kṛṣṇadasa Kavirāja explains:

Lust and love have different characteristics, just as iron and gold have

different natures. The desire to gratify one’s own senses is kāma [lust], but

the desire to please the senses of Lord Kṛṣṇa is prema [love] … Whenever

there is unselfish love, that is its style. The reservoir of love derives

pleasure when the lovable object is pleased … Lusty desires are

experienced when one is concerned with [one’s] own personal sense

gratification. The mood of the gopīs is not like that. Their only desire is to

satisfy the senses of Kṛṣṇa. Among the gopīs, there is not a pinch of desire

for sense gratification. Their only desire is to give pleasure to Kṛṣṇa, and

this is why they mingle with Him and enjoy with Him.24

In the absolute realm, the exchange of love between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs is

known as parakīya-rasa, which is something like the relationship between a

married girl and a boy other than her husband. In the value system of the

absolute realm (the “shore tree”), parakīya-rasa is considered the purest

expression of supreme love for God, whereas in the inverted value system

of the temporal realm (the “reflected tree”), it is generally considered most

inexcusable and immoral. In the loving sentiments of the absolute realm, as

induced by Yoga-māyā, both Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs are said to forget

themselves in the rapture of spiritual love. Bhaktivedānta notes that “by the

influence of such forgetfulness, the attractive beauty of the gopīs plays a

prominent part in the transcendental satisfaction of the Lord, who has

nothing to do with mundane sex.”25 Indeed, the Bhāgavata proclaims that

merely by hearing about the loving affairs of Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs one is

rapidly cured of kāma (worldly lust): “One who is filled with faith, who

hears or describes this līlā, having regained the highest devotion for the

Beloved Lord, has lust, the disease of the heart, quickly removed without

delay.”26 Keeping this philosophical background in mind, we can now

proceed to our discussion of Kṛṣṇa’s rāsa-līlā.

Kṛṣṇa and the Rāsa-līlā

The Bhāgavata’s tenth book describes how the enchanting sound of

Kṛṣṇa’s flute would awaken feelings of ardent love in the hearts of the

cowherd maidens of Vraja.27 When, on a moonlit night, Kṛṣṇa sounds his

flute, the gopīs run to him in great haste, setting aside all else in their

village lives. Whatever they may have been doing prior to that sound—

attending to their babies, husbands, and cows, boiling milk, applying

makeup, and so on—is summarily dropped as they rush toward that sound,

even as various family members attempt to block their way; not all,

however, are so fortunate. Some are locked in their rooms, and thus are

prevented from being with Kṛṣṇa. With no external means of achieving

union with the object of their love, these imprisoned gopīs absorb

themselves in deep meditation (samādhi) on their beloved Kṛṣṇa. The

Bhāgavata declares, in this connection, that both those who were able to

meet Kṛṣṇa and those who were prevented from doing so achieved

perfection in yoga. Moreover, even though the imprisoned gopīs meditated

on Kṛṣṇa not as the supreme being, but rather as their personal lover, their

practice of yoga nonetheless united them with Kṛṣṇa. The Bhāgavata

explains that the intense pain of separation from Kṛṣṇa (viraha-tīvra-tāpa)

burned away these gopīs’ past karma and unshackled them from “bodies

comprised of the gu

ṇ

as:”

For those gopīs who could not go to see Kṛṣṇa, intolerable separation from

their beloved caused an intense agony that burned away all impious karma.

By meditating upon Him they realized His embrace, and the ecstasy they

then felt exhausted their material piety. Although Lord Kṛṣṇa is the

Supreme Soul, these girls simply thought of Him as their male lover and

associated with Him in that intimate mood. Thus their karmic bondage was

nullified and they abandoned their gross material bodies.28

In his commentary, Viśvanātha suggests that when the gopīs’ material

bodies were burned by the fire of separation from Kṛṣṇa, they regained

awareness of their eternal spiritual forms. Endowed with the appropriate

identity and mood, the gopīs then experienced the infinite bliss of

meditatively embracing “the astonishing divine body of Acyuta (Kṛṣṇa),”

which was full of love for them. Viśvanātha further notes that the joy they

felt made both their material and their spiritual good fortune (man˙gala

ḥ

)

seem insignificant (k

ṣ

ṇ

a). In other words, upon “seeing” (in a

metaphorical sense) the extreme bliss that overwhelmed the gopīs due to

their meditative embrace of Kṛṣṇa, all the sensual pleasures of millions of

universes, and even the non-material pleasures of spiritual bliss

(brahmānanda) “became withered, inferior, and insignificant.”29

Regarding the gopīs that were able to dance in the celebrated rāsa-līlā, they

achieved perfection through direct association with Kṛṣṇa. Commentators

describe the rāsa dance as the perfect yoga (or union) between Kṛṣṇa and

his eternal emanations, and the text suggests that these gopīs received this

opportunity because they had already achieved the highest stage of yoga

prior to joining the rāsa dance.30 Nonetheless, it is said that these already

glorious yogīs became even more glorious—and their yoga more profound

—due to Kṛṣṇa’s direct association. Kṛṣṇa’s touch is said to remove all

sins,31 destroy all sorrows, and increase the pleasures of love, causing his

beloveds to forget other passions.32 The Bhāgavata notes that upon bathing

their senses in the beauty of Kṛṣṇa and contacting his person in the rāsa-

līlā, the gopīs’ senses became fully purified and overcome with delight (see

Figure 5.2).33

Figure 5.2 The yoga of the rāsa-līlā of Kṛṣṇa (yogeśvara) and the gopīs

(yogīs) takes place by the arrangement of Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā.

Here it is important to point out that the Bhāgavata sets the bhakti of the

rāsa-līlā narrative within the framework of yoga—to the point where the

gopīs are literally referred to as yogīs34 and Kṛṣṇa is referred to as the

master of yoga (yogeśvara),35 or the master of all masters of yoga

(yogeśvareśvara).36 The fact that the Bhāgavata considers the gopīs to be

not only Kṛṣṇa’s most intimate associates, but also the highest yogīs is

given sharp focus in the tenth book account of Uddhava’s visit to

Vṛndāvana:

Uddhava, one of Kṛṣṇa’s closest friends and advisors in the kingdom of

Dvāraka, travels to Vṛndāvana to console the vraja-vāsīs (particularly the

gopīs), who had been plunged into an ocean of suffering when Kṛṣṇa left

Vṛndāvana, never to return. In Vṛndāvana, Uddhava unsuccessfully

attempts to console and pacify the gopīs’ feeling of separation, but in the

process, he becomes so captivated by their intense devotional attachment to

Kṛṣṇa that he himself develops an ardent desire to obtain the very same
sentiment. Uddhava, himself a highly evolved and extremely qualified
associate of Kṛṣṇa, recognizes the gopīs’ superior position, considering
their bhakti to be more exalted than that which has been attained by any
other category of devotee. Thus he humbly begs to be blessed with the dust
of the gopīs’ feet:
These gopīs are the highest embodied beings on the earth; their love for
Govinda [Kṛṣṇa], the soul of everything, is perfected. Those who are
fearful of the material world aspire to this and so do sages, and so do we
ourselves. What is the use of births as Brahmā?37 Aho! May I become any
of the shrubs, creepers, or plants in Vṛndāvana that enjoy the dust of the
feet of these women. They have renounced their own relatives, who are so
hard to give up … and worshipped the feet of Mukunda.38
In the Bhāgavata’s third book there is a detailed description of the eightfold
yoga system (yama, niyama, āsana, prā
ṇ
āyāma, pratyāhāra, dhāra
ṇ
ā,
dhyāna, and samādhi), similar to that of Patañjali’s, presented such that the
end result of yoga practice is the type of vraja-līlā-bhakti achieved by the
gopīs of Vṛndāvana.39 Patañjali’s Yoga-sūtras presents five yamas40 and
five niyamas,41 each of which is expanded to twelve in the Bhāgavata.42
The Purāṇa then recommends that the yogī sit on a comfortable āsana,43
practice breath exercises (prā
ṇ
āyāma) to control the mind and senses,44 and
withdraw the sense organs (pratyāhāra) from their respective objects.45 The
Bhāgavata’s presentation of the first three stages, āsana, prā
ṇ
āyāma,
pratyāhāra, is almost identical to that which is found in the Yoga-sūtras,
and is only briefly described.46
The major distinctions between the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and the Yoga-sūtras
center on the final three stages: dhāra
ṇ
ā, dhyāna, and samādhi. In the
Yoga-sūtras, the object of one’s dhāra
ṇ
ā (holding in the mind or memory)
is not very important; it is the act of dhāra
ṇ
ā itself that produces the yogī’s
extraordinary powers.47 For the Bhāgavata, however, the object of
meditation is highly significant; dhāra
ṇ
ā is not devoid of content.48 The
object and aim of dhyāna (meditation) in the Bhāgavata is the exquisite
eternal form49 and līlā of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu.50

The Bhāgavata reviews the first five stages of yoga (yama, niyama, āsana,
prā
ṇ
āyāma, and pratyāhāra) in ten verses,51 but then expends twice that
number providing an elaborate description of Viṣṇu’s form. The yogī is
instructed to hold this form within the mind (dhāra
ṇ
ā) and wholly meditate
upon it (dhyāna).52 The idea is to begin one’s meditation by holding
Viṣṇu’s “lotus” feet within the mind and then to gradually ascend his form
until his all-enchanting smile has been reached:
An object of effortless meditation is the Lord’s laughter, revealing a row of
fine jasminelike teeth, reddened by his full, lustrous lips. Desiring to see
nothing else with mind offered in deep devotion, one should meditate on the
laughter of Vishnu, who resides in the core of the heart.53
In the rāsa-līlā narrative, we also find the gopīs deeply absorbed in specific
meditation on the beauty of Kṛṣṇa’s face and form. Hardy lists twenty-five
verses indicating that “all the mental, emotional, and psychic processes of
the [gopīs] are concentrated on Kṛṣṇa.”54 At various places throughout the
text, the Bhāgavata describes that the gopīs’ mind,55 heart,56 intellect,57
consciousness,58 hope,59 and body60 are all absorbed in Kṛṣṇa. The gopīs
of Vraja, singing to each other of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, pass the days happily, with
their hearts [tac-citta] and minds [tan-manaska] completely absorbed in
Kṛṣṇa.61
As already noted above, when the yogī attains the state of complete
absorption (samādhi)62 in Viṣṇu’s form, he/she experiences devotional
sentiments similar to those of the gopīs:
By thus meditating one gains deep feeling for Bhagavan Hari, the heart
flowing with devotion and horripilation arising out of great joy. Being
suddenly overwhelmed by tearful, incoherent expressions of longing, even
the hooklike mind then gradually withdraws …63
According to the Bhāgavata, those yogīs that succeed in their practice of the
eightfold path attain the state of ecstatic love for God, whereby the heart
melts, hairs stand on end, and so forth. This state of samādhi differs
markedly from the state of kaivalya described in the Yoga-sūtras—i.e., a
type of isolation that is free from the fluctuations of the mind.64 Indeed, the

third book concludes its discussion by noting that the perfected yogī-

devotee rejects all types of liberation (mok

ṣ

a), including residence in the

absolute realm (sālokya), god-like wealth, power, and glory (sār

ṣṭ

i), God’s

direct association (sāmīpya), a god-like eternal form (sārūpya), and the

attainment of undifferentiated oneness (ekatva). Such self-satisfied bhaktas

do not accept anything except God’s service.65

The yoga of the Bhāgavata is steeped in ecstatic love for God, as displayed

in the intimate loving bond between Kṛṣṇa and the residents of Vraja, the

highest expression of which is found in the depiction of the gopīs love for

Kṛṣṇa. Schweig notes, in this connection, that in the devotion of the gopīs,

yoga is used as a tool for love: “All the cowherd maidens are effectively

yogīs of love, whose minds and hearts are ever fixed on their beloved Lord.

Kṛṣṇa is called, in several places throughout the drama, the ‘Lord of all

masters of yoga,’ yogeśvareśvara, and the gopīs are certainly such masters

of yoga.”66

Here it should be remembered, however, that the yoga of the rāsa-līlā takes

place according to the arrangement and supervision of Kṛṣṇa’s yoga-māyā.

The Bhagavad-gītā notes that māyā, the energy emanating from Kṛṣṇa’s

yoga, is difficult to overcome for those that dwell in willfull separation

from Kṛṣṇa.67 This energy (or potency) is fully under Kṛṣṇa’s control and

it is the energy through which Kṛṣṇa controls others. In the Bhāgavata’s

tenth book, however, where “yoga” is primarily seen as the intimate ecstatic

union between Kṛṣṇa and his beloveds (the yogeśvara and the yogīs),

māyā’s primary role is to facilitate that union.

Thus, a distinctive feature of the Bhāgavata’s conception of yoga-māyā

concerns the notion that both the yogīs (gopīs) and the yogeśvara (Kṛṣṇa)

become connected and controlled by yoga-māyā, just as two bulls are

controlled by a yoke (yoga). By the arrangement of yoga-māyā, the yogīs

and the yogeśvara attain the state of perfect yoga, the rāsa-līlā, as depicted

in the Figure 5.3, which is a modified version of the diagram depicting the

structure of yoga in the Bhagavad-gītā (found in Schweig’s Gītā

translation):68

Figure 5.3 Structure of yoga in the rāsa-līlā (after Schweig).

Let us now take a closer look at the ways in which yoga-māyā orchestrates

the connection between Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs and intensifies bhakti within

the rāsa-līlā. The five chapters of the rāsa-līlā vividly illustrate yoga-

māyā’s unique function in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

Yoga-māyā in the Rāsa-līlā

From the very first verse of the rāsa-līlā narrative, the Bhāgavata

announces yoga-māyā’s presence: “Even Bhagavān [Kṛṣṇa], seeing those

nights with autumn-blooming mallikā flowers, made up his mind to enjoy

love, relying upon his yoga-māyā.”69 Although this constitutes the only

explicit appearance of this dual compound in the five chapters that describe

this eventful tale,70 the fact of Kṛṣṇa’s “reliance” makes plain yoga-māyā’s

vital role as his “yogic power,” which is indirectly emphasized by the

Bhāgavata’s frequent references to Kṛṣṇa as “the master of yoga”

(yogeśvara)71 or the “the master of the masters of yoga”

(yogeśvareśvara).72

Of the many events that occur during the rāsa-līlā, yoga-māyā is

particularly responsible for drawing Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs together for the

performance of yoga. Yoga-māyā is seen in this role even before the above

referenced opening verse, where Kṛṣṇa calls upon her to facilitate his

desire for enjoyment. Several chapters prior to this, the Bhāgavata also

describes how the gopīs worshipped Yoga-māyā (goddess Kātyāyanī) for an

entire month in order to obtain Kṛṣṇa as their husband:

In the first month of the hemanta (winter season), the young girls of

Nanda’s Vraj observed the vow to worship the goddess Kātyāyanī by eating

sacrificial food. After bathing in the waters of the Kālindī River at sunrise,

they made an image of the goddess from sand near the water [and prayed]

… “O goddess Kātyāyanī, great Māyā, great yogī, supreme Lord; honor to

you! Please make the son of Nanda, the gopa [Kṛṣṇa], my husband, O

Goddess.” Uttering this mantra, those young girls performed pūjā

worship.73

Once the gopīs successfully complete their vow, Kṛṣṇa assures them that

because of their worship, their desires will be fulfilled: “Go now, girls, and

return to Vraja. Your desire is fulfilled, for in My company you will enjoy

the coming nights. After all, this was the purpose of your vow to worship

goddess Kātyāyanī [Yoga-māyā], O pure-hearted ones.”74 The “nights”

ṣ

apā

ḥ

) prophesized by Kṛṣṇa refer to the nights of the rāsa-līlā, which

occur a few days later, facilitated by the connecting power of yoga-māyā.

The fact that both Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs seek refuge in yoga-māyā to fulfill

their union (yoga) is no coincidence. Here we see yoga-māyā’s essential

role of “yoking” together the yogī and the yogeśvara with the aim of

intimate loving exchange. Schweig explains: “The spiritual actor and

actresses, God and the pure souls, by virtue of the uniting force of yoga-

māyā verily lose themselves in this divine aesthetic of līlā, in which all

activities are executed for the purpose of increasing the intensity and

intimacy of their love.”75

As already noted above, a primary way in which yoga-māyā intensifies

bhakti is by causing Kṛṣṇa’s most intimate devotees to forget his majesty.

Curiously, yoga-māyā appears to have a somewhat similar function in both

the temporal and the absolute realms. In the temporal realm, she causes

those that desire to exist apart from God to forget not only him, but also

their eternal connection to him; and in the absolute realm she causes those

that desire unfettered intimacy with God to forget his almighty status. In

other words, in the temporal realm, māyā functions to distance the

individual self from God, whereas in Kṛṣṇa’s vraja-līlā, māyā serves to

intimately connect the two.

In this connection, we have reviewed in the tale of Kṛṣṇa swallowing clay

how yoga-māyā causes Kṛṣṇa’s mother to forget that he is God, thus

enabling her to wholly accept Kṛṣṇa as her own natural child. This,

however, leaves an even larger question still unanswered: what of Kṛṣṇa

(God) himself, when he assumes the role of child, friend, or lover? What

influence can yoga-māyā have over his remembrance and forgetfulness?

From what can be discerned from the rāsa-līlā and other tenth book

narratives, it appears that yoga-māyā does somehow enable Kṛṣṇa to forget

that he is God, thus allowing him to genuinely experience all the personal

dynamics of his intimate relationships with the unalloyed devotees that are

spontaneously drawn to him.76

To help us comprehend this singular aspect of Kṛṣṇa’s dealings in the

absolute realm, which from our relative vantage point remain largely

incomprehensible, the Bhāgavata compares Kṛṣṇa’s forgetfulness to that of

an actor who is absorbed in his role on stage.77 For the period of time that

one is in costume and on stage, fully immersed in one’s performance, there

is no space in one’s consciousness for memory of one’s factual identities.

Indeed, the intrusion of such memory in the midst of a performance could

only serve to interfere with one’s role on stage.

This analogy helps us to obtain only a small grasp of how even the

omnipotent, all-knowing supreme being can forget who he is (through the

agency of yoga-māyā) while accepting the role of a child, friend, or lover in

the absolute realm, where Kṛṣṇa and his intimate devotees enjoy

uncountable eternal līlās, “pastimes.” Kṛṣṇa is the supreme playwrite,

producer, and actor, losing himself completely in the play, while yoga-māyā

sets the stage, creates the settings and directs. In these enactments, Kṛṣṇa is

pleased by wholly pleasing his eternal servants, parents, friends, and lovers,

and they are pleased by wholly pleasing him—in keeping with the above

definition of unselfish love.

During the rāsa-līlā, as previously noted, the gopīs were not conscious of

Kṛṣṇa’s all-powerful, all-knowing majestic feature; they simply viewed

him as their beloved: “O sage, they [the gopīs] related to Kṛṣṇa as their

supreme lover, not as Brahman, the absolute truth.”78

Viśvanātha comments in this connection that yoga-māyā makes the

residents of Vṛndāvana—the gopīs, cowherd boys and Kṛṣṇa’s parents—

forgetful of Kṛṣṇa’s power and opulence according to the intensity of their

love (prema) in a particular bhāva.79 The word bhāva can be translated as

temperament, feeling, sentiment, disposition, manner of being, and

relationship.80 The gopīs’ prema is imbued with mādhurya-bhāva (amorous

love), Yaśodā’s with vātsalya-bhāva (parental love) and Kṛṣṇa’s friends’

with sākhya-bhāva (friendship).

Interestingly, Viśvanātha goes on to note that when the bhāva of a given

Vraja resident is disturbed, this results in instantaneous re-awareness that

Kṛṣṇa is indeed almighty God. Thus we find in the rāsa-līlā chapters that

while the gopīs generally relate to Kṛṣṇa as their beloved cowherd boy,

they awaken to his position as God in times of calamity, upon his

separation, or even when he speaks to them in indifferent or sarcastic tones.

Upon hearing Kṛṣṇa’s flute during the evening of the full moon, the gopīs

immediately abandoned their family members, and rushed to meet him in

the dead of night. However, when they arrived, Kṛṣṇa appeared to be

indifferent, even trying to convince them to return home. This apparently

callous treatment by their most beloved is said to have disturbed the gopīs’

bhāva. Thus their remembrance of Kṛṣṇa’s majesty awakened and they

began to address him more in the manner of Vedāntic philosophers than of

amorous lovers: “[O Kṛṣṇa,] You are the eternal beloved, O soul of all, and

so the learned place their affection in you. What is the use of husbands and

children who simply cause problems? Therefore, O supreme Lord, be

pleased with us.”81

After Kṛṣṇa accepted their request, the rāsa dance began, and the gopīs

once again came under the influence of yoga-māyā, seeing Kṛṣṇa only as

their most beloved lover. After some time, however, Kṛṣṇa suddenly

vanished from the rāsa dance, leaving the gopīs alone in the forest in the

dead of night. This, of course, placed the gopīs in great distress, disturbing

their bhāva yet again. Thus they regained their awareness of Kṛṣṇa as God,

and began offering him prayers. The gopīs’ prayers are found in chapter

thirty-one of the tenth book. Here is a brief rendition of but a few:

[O Kṛṣṇa,] you are not factually Yaśodā’s son, but are rather the indwelling

witness in the hearts of all embodied beings. Because Brahmā entreated you

to descend, you have come to protect the universe [10.31.4]. Your lotus

hand, which holds the hand of Lakṣmī, the goddess of fortune, removes all

fear from the hearts of the fearful [10.31.5], your lotus feet obliterate the

accumulated sins of those that seek your shelter [10.31.7], and the

narrations of your activities shower good fortune upon all that hear them

[10.31.9].82

Apart from the example of the gopīs, the Bhāgavata tells of other instances

whereby Kṛṣṇa’s friends, parents, and others regained awareness of Kṛṣṇa

as God when their bhāva was disturbed. During the Govardhan līlā, for

example, Indra, a higher being of this universe, devastates the village of

Vraja with a veritable hurricane of wind, rain and flooding, which causes all

the vraja-vāsīs to become afraid and “instinctively” turn to Kṛṣṇa as God

for protection—despite the fact that only moments earlier they were relating

to Kṛṣṇa as their vulnerable child, co-equal friend, or boy-like paramour:

The livestock, shivering because of the high wind and rain, and the gopas

and gopīs, afflicted by cold, approached Kṛṣṇa for protection. Covering

their heads and shielding their children with their bodies, shivering and

tormented by the rain, they approached the soles of the feet of the Lord:

‘Kṛṣṇa, most virtuous Kṛṣṇa, master – you are compassionate towards

your devotees. Please protect Gokula, which accepts you as Lord, from the

wrath of this divinity.’ Seeing them pounded unconscious by the excessive

wind and hail, Lord Hari reflected on what Indra had done in his fury.83

Once the devastation is over and things return to normal, everyone’s

individual bhāva is restored and the vraja-vāsīs again relate to Kṛṣṇa as

Kṛṣṇa, rather than as God.

Regarding Kṛṣṇa’s apparent lack of self-awareness during līlā, Viśvanātha

notes that although Kṛṣṇa is omniscient, his desire to experience the

intense prema (pure love) of the vraja-vāsīs (his most elevated devotees)

prompts him to voluntarily withdraw his omniscience as he likes. Citing the

example of Yaśoda, he notes that her unconditional love for Kṛṣṇa binds

them together with ropes of mutual possessiveness and forgetfulness.84

Kṛṣṇa is fully the child, friend, or lover to the various inhabitants of Vraja,

and so long as his bhāva is not disturbed, he remains unmindful of the fact

that he is the supreme being, the omnipotent cause of all causes, and so

forth. When Kṛṣṇa is frolicking in the forest with his cowherd boyfriends

and cows, he does not remember that he is God. However, when any

incident arises that places the boys and cows in jeopardy, threatens their

lives, or disturbs them in any way, Kṛṣṇa at once becomes “who he is,” and

with only a slight portion of his inexhaustible power, immediately saves the

day. This is a scenario that repeatedly plays out in tenth book narratives

concerning destructive figures like Pūtanā, Aghāsura, Kāliya, Bakāsura, and

others.

With respect to this extraordinary aspect of God’s being, as presented in the

Bhāgavata, Viśvanātha poses the following intriguing question: during līlā,

when Kṛṣṇa appears to be influenced by yoga-māyā, does he truly lose

awareness that he is God, or is he merely “pretending”? If we take the

position that Kṛṣṇa is merely pretending, this calls into question his

capacity to genuinely enjoy sweet, loving relations with his most intimate

devotees; if, on the other hand, we take the position that Kṛṣṇa factually

loses cognizance of himself as God under yoga-māyā’s influence, this calls

into question his omnipotent, omniscient status as the supreme being. Both

of these alternatives seem to impose a type of limitation on that which is

theoretically supposed to be unlimited. Let us examine this question in a bit

more depth.

The Bhāgavata tells us that in the highest Goloka as well as its facsimile

here on earth, God is perpetually absorbed in loving exchange with his most

intimate devotees, meaning that he theoretically exists in a perpetual state

of self-forgetting. How then could God continue to maintain the three

worlds? How could he accept and respond to the worship, prayers, services,

etc. of his numerous dependents in both the absolute and the temporal

realm?85 Commentators suggest that these and other such questions expose

the inadequacies and limitations of our own perceptual and cognitive

abilities, since we are attempting to comprehend a being and a dimension of

reality that is beyond our ken. It would be like Plato’s cave-dwelling

shadowlanders, who know only the dark two-dimensional images moving

before them, attempting to comprehend the color, variety, breadth, depth,

and motion of the three-dimensional world existing just across the border of

their cave. In the case of God and the absolute realm, however, the

challenge relative to our human limitations is far, far greater.

Nonetheless, since is it also in our nature to ponder over the inconceivable,

commentators like Viśvanātha have attempted to share their thoughts and

understandings on the matter of Kṛṣṇa’s self-forgetting. He concludes that

in the realm of Vṛndāvana, Kṛṣṇa is so absorbed in his dealings with his

friends, lovers, and parents that he truly does lose awareness that he is the

omniscient, omnipotent supreme being. For evidence, he turns to the

Bhāgavata itself, particularly chapter eight of the first book, in which Queen

Kuntī offers her direct prayers to Kṛṣṇa, who is standing before her. In one

such expression Kuntī admits to being bewildered (vimohayati) by Kṛṣṇa’s

Vṛndāvana līlā, recalling how he—the all-powerful supreme being, who is

feared by fear itself—ran in fear from his mother when she tried to tie her

naughty child to a wooden grinding mortar.86 Viśvanātha argues that if

Kuntī’s opinion had been that Kṛṣṇa was only pretending to be afraid, there

would have been no cause for bewilderment. And yet she states

unequivocally that she is indeed confounded by the contradictions inherent

in God’s childhood dealings. From this, Viśvanātha surmises that while

involved in his Vṛndāvana līlā Kṛṣṇa does truly lose awareness of his

supreme status as God. But then, how could God be omniscient, and yet be

unaware of something so fundamental as himself?

Viśvanātha responds by stating that Kṛṣṇa is simultaneously omniscient

and self-forgetting, and that this is made possible by means of his acintya

sakti—his inconceivable energy (or capacity) through which all

impossibilities are made easily possible. And with the word

“inconceivable” we arrive at our answer—and the only answer, it seems,

that we can have about the incomprehensible being that is God (granted that

such a being exists).

We should note that Kuntī herself never attempts to resolve her own

perplexity—she remains fundamentally confounded by Kṛṣṇa’s activities.

Indeed, the Bhāgavata’s polymorphic monotheism is completely at variance

with our own experience of persons in this world. Like Plato’s cave-

dwellers, we ask how there could be a being—a person—with an original

eternal form that never loses integrity even as it expands such that it

literally becomes (yet does not become) everything, encompasses (yet does

not encompass) everything, exists within (yet does not exist within) all?

How are we to conceive of the inconceivable, comprehend the

incomprehensible? These and other such questions lie unanswered at the

very heart of Kṛṣṇa’s Vṛndāvana līlā—and in large measure they must

remain so. The Bhāgavata shows again and again throughout its pages that

no one—not Kuntī, not Bhīṣma, not Brahmā, not Śiva, not the greatest

saints and sages—can fully comprehend the supposed being that is God.

Apart from employing yoga-māyā to facilitate intimate and unfettered

relations between himself and the vraja-vāsīs, Kṛṣṇa also employs her to

heighten the intensity of ecstatic love by facilitating marvelous, mystical

feats. The Bhāgavata explains, in this connection, that during the rāsa-līlā,

while dancing with an untold number of gopīs, Kṛṣṇa employed his yoga-

māyā to expand into multiple forms and cover the perceptions of the gopīs

such that each gopī thought that Kṛṣṇa was dancing and interacting only

with her:

The festival of the rāsa dance commenced with a circular formation of

gopīs. The supreme Lord of yoga (yogeśvara), Kṛṣṇa, entered among them,

between each pair—each thought that she alone was at his side as he placed

his [arm around her neck] …87

While the text makes no direct mention of yoga-māyā, her involvement as

Kṛṣṇa’s potency is obvious since Kṛṣṇa is referred to as yogeśvara, the

master of yoga, meaning the master of the natural potency that enables him

to effortlessly create such extraordinary yogic feats. In his commentary on

this verse, Viśvanātha also reads yoga as yoga-māyā: “[The word] yoga

refers to yoga-māyā, the great potency who is expert in doing the

impossible for her Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa. Knowing that Kṛṣṇa desired to

embrace all the gopīs simultaneously, yoga-māyā manifested a Kṛṣṇa for

each gopī to solve this problem.”88

By multiplying himself in many forms, Kṛṣṇa is able to dance with each

gopī, hand in hand. Yoga-māyā’s facilitation increases the intensity of the

gopīs’ love, because each gopī thinks that Kṛṣṇa is especially favoring

her.89 Here again we see Yoga-māyā’s central role in intensifying bhakti.

Apart from her service of bringing Kṛṣṇa and the gopīs together for the

rāsa-līlā, the Bhāgavata notes that māyā (or yoga-māyā) also serves to

bewilder the gopī’s husbands such that they feel no resentment toward

Kṛṣṇa:

The husband cowherds of Vraja felt no jealousy whatsoever toward Kṛṣṇa.

Deluded by his [Kṛṣṇa’s] power of māyā, each husband thought his wife

had remained all the while by his side.90

The text makes clear, however, that the gopīs themselves were not aware

that yoga-māyā had so deluded their husbands; they had come to be with

Kṛṣṇa in the dead of night, despite the consequences of exposure. Still,

when they finally reach Kṛṣṇa, he coyly (and guilefully) advises that they

had better return home: “Your mothers, fathers, sons, brothers, and

husbands are worried because they cannot find you. Do not cause your

relatives concern.”91 The gopīs, of course, heartfully decline to do so, as

Kṛṣṇa knew they would—his aim being only to increase their love for him.

Commentators praise the gopīs as exemplars of devotion, because their

love, unlike that of Kṛṣṇa’s wives in Dvārakā, involves a greater degree of

risk and sacrifice. Indeed, Kṛṣṇa himself praises their bhakti during the

rāsa-līlā: “You have broken the enduring shackles of the household, and

have served me. You are full of goodness and without fault, and I am unable

to reciprocate [your love], even in the lifetime of a god. Therefore, let your

reward be your own excellence.”92

Because the gopīs’ love for Kṛṣṇa never waivers in the least, even in the

face of the most difficult and potentially compromising circumstances,

Rūpa Gosvāmī characterizes their bhakti as samartha-rati, or selfless love:

love of another that is completely free from considerations for one’s own

happiness and that remains undisturbed and uninterrupted come what may.

Rūpa Gosvāmī identifies this as the highest type of love:93

Those girls who with great love offer themselves to Kṛṣṇa without caring

for religious principles, and without caring what happens to them in this

world or the next, are known as the parakīya lovers of Kṛṣṇa. Even though

the gopīs were so much in love with Kṛṣṇa that they jumped over the path

of religious principles to become His lovers, Arundhati and the other chaste

women offer them all respect and worship. Even though the gopīs are

village girls living in the rural area of Vṛndāvana forest, the slight fragrance

of their sweetness has dissolved the great beauty and opulence of the

goddess of fortune. The exalted position of the gopīs is rare in the three

worlds. I pray that these gopī friends of Kṛṣṇa may grant transcendental

happiness to you.94

Dual Roles of Māyā

In the rāsa-līlā, often regarded as the Bhāgavata’s climax, māyā’s role

differs markedly from her role as portrayed at the beginning of the text. In

the Bhāgavata’s first book, māyā is introduced as an important element in

Vyāsa’s meditative trance (samādhi). As previously explained, “through the

yoga of devotion” Vyāsa envisions three things: (1) the “complete person”

(puru

ṣ

a pūr

ṇ

a); (2) the energy or potency (māyā) belonging to and

depending upon that complete person; and, (3) the individual selves (ātman)

who are deluded by that energy or potency.95 We find two significant

differences between the depiction of māyā in Vyāsa’s meditative trance and

the depiction found in the rāsa-līlā. The first difference concerns the

relationship between Kṛṣṇa and māyā and the second concerns the

relationship between māyā and the living beings.

In Vyāsa’s meditative trance, māyā’s relationship with Bhagavān is

described using the word apāśrita, “dependent upon” or “resorting to”—

māyā is said to be fully dependent on Bhagavān. Interestingly, the opening

verse of the rāsa-līlā uses the same Sanskrit word apāśrita to describe the

relationship between Bhagavān and māyā, but in reverse order—here,

Kṛṣṇa chooses to depend on māyā. Kṛṣṇa’s taking refuge in māyā occurs

only in the Bhāgavata’s tenth book.

The second difference regards the relationship between māyā and the souls.

In both Vyāsa’s vision and in the rāsa-līlā, māyā serves as Kṛṣṇa’s

deluding energy meant to bewilder living beings. In Vyāsa’s vision, māyā

bewilders the living beings that wish to forget their relationship with God,

causing an undesirable condition of suffering. In the rāsa-līlā narrative,

however, māyā serves to cover the awareness of God’s majesty from his

most loving devotees, thus enabling them to interact with him in greater

intimacy and abounding love. In the absolute realm of Vraja, succumbing to

māyā’s influence is the highest attainment of life and the ultimate goal of

yoga.

Thus, in the context of Kṛṣṇa’s līlā, māyā serves not as the potency of

delusion, but rather as the energy that reconnects finite souls with the divine

play of Kṛṣṇa. Instead of forgetting God, the souls now forget that he is

God, so that they may play their role in relationship with him. Indeed,

Kṛṣṇa himself voluntarily submits to the power of yoga-māyā, losing

himself in this divine drama, thus increasing the intensity and intimacy of

his devotees’ love for him.

Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal

K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).

1 Gupta, The Caitanya Vai

ṣṇ

ava Vedānta of Jīva Gosvāmī: When

Knowledge Meets Devotion, 203.

2 Friedhelm Hardy, Viraha-Bhakti: The Early History of K

ṛṣṇ

a Devotion in

South India, Oxford University South Asian Studies Series (Delhi: Oxford,

1983), 496.

3 Bhagavad-Gita 10.9.

4 Bhagavad-Gita 11.41–2.

5 BhP 1.1.2.

6 BhP 1.2.6.

7 BhP 3.29.7–10.
8 BhP 3.29.11–12.
9 BhP 3.29.13.
10 BhP 6.17.28.
11 BhP 10.8.32–45, paraphrased from Bryant, Krishna: Beautiful Legend of
God.
12 BhP 10.9.20, trans. Bryant:
nema
ṁ
 viriñco na bhavo na śrīr apy a
ṅ
ga-sa
ṁ
śrayā
prasāda
ṁ
 lebhire gopī yat tat prāpa vimuktidāt ||20||
13 BhP 1.3.28, k
ṛṣṇ
as tu bhagavān svayam. For a full discussion of
Kṛṣṇa’s position in the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a, see Freda Matchett, K
ṛṣṇ
a:
Lord or Avatāra?: The Relationship between K
ṛṣṇ
a and Vi
ṣṇ
u (Richmond:
Curzon, 2001).
14 BhP 10.1.4.
15 BhP 10.9.
16 BhP 10.9, paraphrased from Bryant, Krishna: Beautiful Legend of God.
17 BhP 10.9.21.
18 BhP 10.9.13:
na cāntar na bahir yasya na pūrva
ṁ
 nāpi cāparam
pūrvāpara
ṁ
 bahiś cāntar jagato yo jagac ca ya
ḥ
 ||13||
19 BhP 10.9.19, trans. Bryant.
20 Siddheswar Bhattacharya, The Philosophy of the Śrīmad Bhāgavata, 2
vols. (Santiniketan: Visva-Bharati, 1960), 50–1.
21 BhP 2.9.34; 3.7.11; 7.15.58.
22 Oxford Living Dictionaries.
23 Bhaktivedānta Swami, Bhagavad-gītā As It Is (New York: Collier Books,
1972), 93.
24 Cc. Adi 4.163; Cc. Adi 4.199–200; Cc. Madhya 8.217–18, trans.
Bhaktivedanta Swami.
25 Bhaktivedanta Swami, Cc. Adi 4.30.

26 BhP 10.32.39. in Schweig, Dance of Divine Love.
27 BhP 10.29.4.
28 BhP 10.29.10–11, trans. H.D. Goswami:
du
ḥ
saha-pre
ṣṭ
ha-viraha-tīvra-tāpa-dhutāśubhā
ḥ
dhyāna-prāptācyutāśle
ṣ
a-nirv
ṛ
tyā k
ṣ
ī
ṇ
a-ma
ṅ
galā
ḥ
 ||10||
tam eva paramātmāna
ṁ
 jāra buddhyāpi sa
ṅ
gatā
ḥ
jahur gu
ṇ
amaya
ṁ
 deha
ṁ
 sadya
ḥ
 prak
ṣ
ī
ṇ
abandhanā
ḥ
 ||11||
29 Visvanātha’s comments on BhP 10.29.10. In Ṭhākura, Sārārtha Darśinī.
Trans. Swami:
dhyānena prāpta
ḥ
 sphūrtyā āgato yo’ cyutas tena tadaivādbhutasya tasya
prema pūr
ṇ
a cinmayasya tād
ṛ
śa-svabhāvābhimānādimato dehasya ya
āśle
ṣ
as tenāśle
ṣ
e
ṇ
a yā nirv
ṛ
tis tayā k
ṣ
ī
ṇ
āni k
ṛ
śībhūtāni ma
ṅ
galāni
prāk
ṛ
tāprāk
ṛ
tāni yāsā
ṁ
 tā
ḥ
, yāsā
ṁ
 sphūrti-prāpta-pre
ṣṭ
hāśle
ṣ
ottha-
sukha
ṁ
 vīk
ṣ
ya ko
ṭ
ī brahmā
ṇḍ
a gata vi
ṣ
aya sukha nirvi
ṣ
aya
brahmānubhava sukha sahasrā
ṇ
i ma
ṅ
gala śabda vācyāni k
ṣ
ī
ṇ
āni yad
apek
ṣ
ayā nik
ṛṣṭ
āny eva babhuvur ity artha
ḥ
 | bhagavad viraha
sa
ṁ
yogottha du
ḥ
kha sukhābhyā
ṁ
 prārabdha pāpa pu
ṇ
yāni na
ṣṭ
āni
te
ṣ
ā
ṁ
 sva phala bhogaika nāśyatād iti vyākhyā tu vai
ṣṇ
avānā
ṁ
 mate na
yujyate ||10||
30 BhP 10.29.35.
31 BhP 10.31.7.
32 BhP 10.31.14, trans. Bryant:
surata-vardhana
ṁ
 śoka-nāśana
ṁ
 svarita-ve
ṇ
unā su
ṣṭ
hu cumbitam
itara-rāga-vismāra
ṇ
a
ṁ
 n
ṛṇ
ā
ṁ
 vitara vīra nas te ‘dharām
ṛ
tam ||14||
33 BhP 10.33.17.
34 BhP 10.32.8.
35 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42, 10.32.14, 10.33.3.

36 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42.

37 BhP 10.47.58, trans. Bryant:

etā

ḥ

para

ṁ

tanu bh

ṛ

to bhuvi gopa vadhvo

govinda eva nikhilātmani rū

ḍ

ha bhāvā

ḥ

vāñchanti yad bhava bhiyo munayo vaya

ṁ

ca ki

ṁ

brahma janmabhir ananta kathā rasasya ||58||

38 BhP 10.47.61, trans. Bryant:

āsām aho cara

ṇ

a re

ṇ

u ju

ṣ

ām aha

ṁ

syā

ṁ

ṛ

ndāvane kim api gulma latau

ṣ

adhīnām

yā dustyaja

ṁ

sva janam ārya patha

ṁ

ca hitvā

bhejur mukunda padavī

ṁ

śrutibhir vim

ṛ

gyām ||61||

39 BhP 3.28.34:

eva

ṁ

harau bhagavati pratilabdha-bhāvo

bhaktyā dravad-dh

ṛ

daya utpulaka

ḥ

pramodāt

autka

ṇṭ

hya-bā

ṣ

pa-kalayā muhur ardyamānas

tac cāpi citta-ba

ḍ

iśa

ṁ

śanakair viyu

ṅ

kte ||34||

40 Patañjali, Yoga-sūtras, 2.30. The five yamas are: nonviolence (ahimsā),

truth (satya), non-stealing (asteya), subsistence with minimum (aparigraha)

and continence (brahma-carya).

41 Patañjali, Yoga-sūtras 2.31. The five niyamas are: purity (śauca),

satisfaction (sa

ṁ

ṣ

a), penance (tapas), reading of scriptures (svādhyāya),

and meditation on God (īśvara-pra

ṇ

idhāna).

42 BhP, 11.19.33. The twelve yamas are nonviolence, truthfulness, not

coveting or stealing the property of others, detachment, humility, freedom

from possessiveness, trust in the principles of religion, celibacy, silence,

steadiness, forgiveness, and fearlessness.

ahi

ṁ

sā satyam asteyam asa

ṅ

go hrīr asañcaya

ḥ

āstikya

ṁ

brahmacarya

ṁ

ca mauna

ṁ

sthairya

ṁ

ṣ

amābhayam ||33||

BhP 11.19.34, The twelve niyamas are internal cleanliness, external

cleanliness, chanting the holy names of the Lord, austerity, sacrifice, faith,

hospitality, worship of Krsna, visiting holy places, acting and desiring only

for the supreme interest, satisfaction, and service to the spiritual master.

śauca

ṁ

japas tapo homa

ḥ

śraddhātithya

ṁ

mad-arcanam

tīrthā

ṭ

ana

ṁ

parārthehā tu

ṣṭ

ir ācārya-sevanam ||34||

43 BhP 3.28.8:

śucau deśe prati

ṣṭ

hāpya vijitāsana āsanam

tasmin svasti samāsīna

ṛ

ju-kāya

ḥ

samabhyaset ||8||

44 BhP 3.28.9:

prā

ṇ

asya śodhayen mārga

ṁ

pūra-kumbhaka-recakai

ḥ

pratikūlena vā citta

ṁ

yathā sthiram acañcalam ||9||

45 BhP 3.28.11:

prā

ṇ

āyāmair dahed do

ṣ

ān dhāra

ṇ

ābhiś ca kilbi

ṣ

ān

pratyāhāre

ṇ

a sa

ṁ

sargān dhyānenānīśvarān gu

ṇ

ān ||11||

46 BhP 3.28.8–11.

47 Bryant, Krishna, the Beautiful Legend of God, xxxiii.

48 Ibid.
49 BhP 3.28.17:
apīcya-darśana
ṁ
 śaśvat sarva-loka-namask
ṛ
tam
santa
ṁ
 vayasi kaiśore bh
ṛ
tyānugraha-kātaram ||17||
50 BhP 3.28.6:
sva-dhi
ṣṇ
yānām eka-deśe manasā prā
ṇ
a-dhāra
ṇ
am
vaiku
ṇṭ
ha-līlābhidhyāna
ṁ
 samādhāna
ṁ
 tathātmana
ḥ
 ||6||
51 BhP 3.28.2–11.
52 BhP, 3.28.13–33.
53 BhP 3.28.33 trans. Gupta and Valpey:
dhyānāyana
ṁ
 prahasita
ṁ
 bahulādharo
ṣṭ
ha-
bhāsāru
ṇ
āyita-tanu-dvija-kunda-pa
ṅ
kti
dhyāyet sva-deha-kuhare ‘vasitasya vi
ṣṇ
or
bhaktyārdrayārpita-manā na p
ṛ
thag did
ṛ
k
ṣ
et ||33||
54 Hardy, Viraha-Bhakti, 527.
55 BhP 10.30.19, 10.30.43, 10.31.10, 10.31.17, 10.46.4.
56 BhP 10.29.4.
57 BhP 10.22.23, 10.29.34, 10.30.2.
58 BhP 10.22.5.
59 BhP 10.29.23.
60 BhP 10.30.3, 10.44.15, 10.47.52.
61 BhP 10.35.26:
eva
ṁ
 vraja-striyo rājan k
ṛṣṇ
a-līlānugāyatī
ḥ
remire ‘ha
ḥ
su tac-cittās tan-manaskā mahodayā
ḥ

62 BhP 3.28.6:
samādhāna
ṁ
 tathātmana
ḥ
63 BhP 3.28.34, trans. Gupta and Valpey:
eva
ṁ
 harau bhagavati pratilabdha-bhāvo
bhaktyā dravad-dh
ṛ
daya utpulaka
ḥ
 pramodāt
autka
ṇṭ
hya-bā
ṣ
pa-kalayā muhur ardyamānas
tac cāpi citta-ba
ḍ
iśa
ṁ
 śanakair viyu
ṅ
kte ||34||
64 Yoga-sūtra, 1.3, 1.4.
65 BhP, 3.29.13:
sālokya-sār
ṣṭ
i-sāmīpya-sārūpyaikatvam apy uta
dīyamāna
ṁ
 na g
ṛ
h
ṇ
anti vinā mat-sevana
ṁ
 janā
ḥ
 ||13||
66 Schweig, Dance of Divine Love, 156.
67 Bhagavad-gītā 7.25:
daivī hy e
ṣ
ā gu
ṇ
a-mayī mama māyā duratyayā
mām eva ye prapadyante māyām etā
ṁ
 taranti te |25|
68 Schweig, Bhagavad Gītā, 248.
69 BhP 10.29.1 trans. based on Schweig:
bhagavān api tā rāt
ṛ
ī
ḥ
 śāradotphulla-mallikā
ḥ
vīk
ṣ
ya-rantu
ṁ
 manaś cakre yoga-māyām upāśrita
ḥ
 ||1||
70 BhP 10.29.1.
71 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42, 10.32.14, 10.33.3.
72 BhP 10.29.16, 10.29.42.

73 BhP 10.22.1–2, 4, trans. Bryant:

hemante prathame māsi nanda-vraja-kumārikā

ḥ

cerur havi

ṣ

ṁ

bhuñjānā

ḥ

kātyāyany-arcana-vratam ||1||

āplutyāmbhasi kālindyā jalānte codite ‘ru

ṇ

ṛ

tvā pratik

ṛ

ṁ

devīm ānarcur n

ṛ

pa saikatīm ||2||

kātyāyani mahā-māye mahā yoginy adhīśvari

nanda-gopa-suta

ṁ

devi pati

ṁ

me kuru te nama

ḥ

iti mantra

ṁ

japantyas tā

ḥ

pūjā

ṁ

cakru

ḥ

kumārikā

ḥ

||4||

74 H.D. Goswami, Srimad-Bhāgavatam 10.22.27:

yātābalā vraja

ṁ

siddhā mayemā ra

ṁ

syathā k

ṣ

apā

ḥ

yad uddiśya vratam ida

ṁ

cerur āryārcana

ṁ

satī

ḥ

||27||

75 Schweig, Dance of Divine Love, 196.

76 It may be interesting to consider this verse in light of the Devī

Bhāgavata’s assertion that Viṣṇu is bewildered by māyā. This would

follow naturally from the Devī Bhāgavata’s claims that Devī, or Śakti, is

the supreme controller, but here, even in the Bhāgavata, “whose very

foundation is built upon the complete and unequivocal mastery of Īśvara,”

there is a hint that Bhagavān becomes overpowered by māyā. Jarow, Tales

for the Dying, 97.

77 BhP 1.8.19:

māyā-javanikācchannam ajñādhok

ṣ

ajam avyayam

na lak

ṣ

yase mū

ḍ

ha-d

ṛ

śā na

ṭ

o nā

ṭ

yadharo yathā ||19||

78 BhP 10.29.12 trans. Bryant.

79 Viśvanātha, Raga-Vartma-Candrika: The Hidden Path of Devotion, trans.
Bhanu Swami, Kindle Edition, 2015.
80 Monier Monier-Williams, A Dictionary of English and Sanskrit (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1964), 754.
81 BhP 10.29.33, trans. Bryant:
kurvanti hi tvayi rati
ṁ
 kuśalā
ḥ
 sva ātman
nitya-priye pati-sutādibhir ārti-dai
ḥ
 kim
tan na
ḥ
 prasīda parameśvara mā sma chindyā
āśā
ṁ
 dh
ṛ
tā
ṁ
 tvayi cirād aravinda-netra ||33||
82 BhP 10.31.4,5,7,9 trans. based upon Bryant.
83 BhP 10.25.11–14, trans. Bryant.
84 Viśvanātha, Raga-Vartma-Candrika: The Hidden Path of Devotion, trans.
Bhanu Swami, Kindle Edition, 2015.
85 Viśvanātha, Raga-Vartma-Candrika: The Hidden Path of Devotion, trans.
Bhanu Swami, Kindle Edition, 2015.
86 BhP 1.8.31:
gopy ādade tvayi k
ṛ
tāgasi dāma tāvad yā te daśāśru-kalilāñjana-
sambhramāk
ṣ
am
vaktra
ṁ
 ninīya bhaya-bhāvanayā sthitasya sā mā
ṁ
 vimohayati bhīr api
yad bibheti
87 BhP 10.33.3, trans. Schweig:
rāsotsava
ḥ
 samprav
ṛ
tto gopī ma
ṇḍ
ala ma
ṇḍ
ita
ḥ
yogeśvare
ṇ
a k
ṛṣṇ
ena tāsā
ṁ
 madhye dvayor dvayo
ḥ
pravi
ṣṭ
ena g
ṛ
hītānā
ṁ
 ka
ṇṭ
he sva nika
ṭ
a
ṁ
 striya
ḥ
 ||3||
88 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 10.33.3. In Ṭhākura, Sārārtha Darśinī:

yad vā, yogo yogamāyā durgha

ṭ

anā pa

ṭ

īyasī mahā śaktis tasyā īśvare

ṇ

a |

yugapat

sarva gopīnām āśle

ṣ

autsukya

ṁ

tasyābhijñāya saiva tāvata

ḥ

prakāśā

ṁ

tasya praka

ṭ

ayya samādadhau ||3||

89 BhP 10.33.3. We also find a reference to Kṛṣṇa expanding himself in

numerous forms to dance with the gopīs in BhP 10.33.20.

90 BhP 10.33.37, trans. Schweig:

nāsūyan khalu k

ṛṣṇ

āya mohitās tasya māyayā

manyamānā

ḥ

sva-pārśva-sthān svān svān dārān vrajaukasa

ḥ

||37||

91 BhP 10.29.20, trans. Bryant:

mātara

ḥ

pitara

ḥ

putrā bhrātara

ḥ

patayaś ca va

ḥ

vicinvanti hy apaśyanto mā k

ṛḍ

hva

ṁ

bandhu-sādhvasam ||20||

92 BhP 10.32.22, trans. Bryant:

na pāraye ‘ha

ṁ

niravadya-sa

ṁ

yujā

ṁ

sva-sādhu-k

ṛ

tya

ṁ

vibudhāyu

ṣ

āpi

ḥ

yā mābhajan durjara-geha-ś

ṛṅ

khalā

ḥ

ṁ

ṛ

ścya tad va

ḥ

pratiyātu

sādhunā ||22||

93 Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ujjvala-nīlama

ṇ

i, chapter 14. In Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ve

ṇ

Gītā: The Song of the Flute, trans. Sivarama Swami (Los Angeles:

Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1999).

94 Rūpa Gosvāmī, Ujjvala-nīlama

ṇ

i, 3.17–19. In ibid.

95 BhP 1.7.2–4:

tasmin sva āśrame vyāso badarī-

ṣ

ṇḍ

a-ma

ṇḍ

ite

āsīno ‘pa upasp

ṛ

śya pra

ṇ

idadhyau mana

ḥ

svayam ||3||

bhakti-yogena manasi samyak pra

ṇ

ihite ‘male

apaśyat puru

ṣ

ṁ

pūr

ṇ

ṁ

māyā

ṁ

ca tad-apāśrayam ||4||

yayā sammohito jīva ātmāna

ṁ

tri-gu

ṇ

ātmakam

paro ‘pi manute ‘nartha

ṁ

tat-k

ṛ

ṁ

cābhipadyate ||5||

Origins, Bondage, Liberation, and

Grace

Of Cats, Monkeys, and Children in

Wells

The Bhāgavata is primarily concerned with how the jīva’s bondage is

perpetuated and how it is brought to an end. While the text more or less

takes bondage for granted, there are several passages that discuss the

important but vexing question of how we became bound in the first place.

In some of these passages, the self’s bondage is described as having a

beginning, and that beginning is described as a type of “fall” from an

original spiritual state. As for freedom from bondage (or liberation), this is

basically described as a return to that original state. Standing against this

portrayal, however, are a handful of Bhāgavata passages which seem to

suggest that the self’s bondage is beginningless (anādi), with no starting

point in time.

This chapter explores the question of whether the Bhāgavata views the

bound jīva as having existed eternally in the cycle of birth and death or as

having previously existed in an unbound state of eternal being, from which

it fell into temporal cyclical existence. In the book, Our Original Position,

H. D. Goswami conducts a thoroughgoing analysis of the Bhāgavata’s

perspective on this topic—an analysis that has significantly informed the

following discussion.

We begin by examining statements in the Bhāgavata asserting that bondage

has a beginning and then examine those asserting that it does not. We next

explore an eleventh book Bhāgavata discussion that attempts to resolve this

apparent contradiction, concluding that when words such as nitya (eternal)

are used in certain contexts, they are used in a figurative rather than a literal

sense to indicate not “beginninglessness,” but rather “an uncountably long

period of time” (i.e., old beyond memory). Having now jumped a bit ahead

of ourselves, let us step back and begin with assertions of a beginning.

The Bhāgavata Asserts that

Bondage Has a Beginning

In Chapter 4 we elaborately discussed the Bhāgavata’s Purañjana allegory.

In this section, we closely examine four verses from that allegory that

specifically describe the self’s original position and willful rejection of God

(4.28.52–54; 64).

Recall that at the end of the tale, a brāhma

ṇ

a (symbolizing Kṛsṇa or God)

comes upon Queen Vaidarbhī (symbolizing the individual self) while she is

lamenting for her deceased husband, and inquires as whether the queen

remembers him: “Don’t you recognize me, your unknown friend, with

whom you used to commune?”1 This verse employs the Sanskrit word

vicacartha (literally, “roam together”), which Viśvanātha glosses as militvā,

“meeting as friends do.”2 Here the Bhāgavata implies that the brāhma

ṇ

and Vaidarbhī (God and the individual self) had been together in a previous

time. The brāhma

ṇ

a next asks Vaidarbhi if she remembers that in the past

she had a very intimate friend, who she had abandoned (hitva) to become an

enjoyer of earthly delights (bhauma bhoga).3 Here specific reference is

made to the fact that at a prior point of existence, the individual self had

voluntarily given up its friendship (or relationship) with God. The Sanskrit

word hitvā means “to leave or abandon,” but also “to disregard or slight.” In

other words, the verse plainly states that the self previously had been in the

company of God, but then had rejected that company to pursue an

independent life of carnal pleasure (bhauma-bhoga). Note that in this

description there is not the slightest hint that the self’s entrapment in the

cycle of birth and death—its alienation from God—is beginningless. The

idea is that one’s natural (original) position is to serve, love, and live

together with God in one or another of his eternal abodes. However, as

noted earlier, when selves desire an independent life of enjoyment, their

oneness-of-interest with God is lost, and they develop a consciousness of

duality, leading them to abhor their subordinate role as minute parts of the

complete whole. Thus they abandon (or “fall” from) God’s association in

order to obtain a position of power and opulence in the temporary world,

where they invariably become entangled in the cycle of birth and death.

The next verse describes the self’s journey from the eternal to the temporal

realm, unknowingly accompanied by God (within the heart), the dear friend

that the self had abandoned in a time beyond memory. In this depiction, the

self and God are compared to two swans residing in the metaphorical lake

of the mind (or Mānasa Lake). They have been existing together for

thousands of years, wandering from one body to another, while remaining

far, far away from their original home (or okas).4

According to commentators, the imagery of swans suggests that although

the two personages have drifted far from home, they maintain their purity

even while in contact with māyā. Vīrarāghava comments that ha

ṁ

(swan) refers to those that have annihilated all disturbances and hankerings

and that are by nature deathless and untouched by sensual pleasure.5

Śrīdhara concurs: both the self and God are ha

ṁ

sas, who are free from all

impurities and whose abode is the subtle body (mind) in the heart

ṛ

dayam).6

Thus far we have seen how the self fell into bondage from an original

position in the absolute realm, and how it has wandered ever since from one

body to another in the temporal realm, kindly accompanied by an unknown

and forgotten friend (the Lord in the heart). Now we come to the final verse

in the series, which completes the cycle by describing how selves regain

their original position in the absolute realm, thus resuming their reciprocal

loving relationship with God. In this joyous exchange of love, God’s only

interest is to serve his devotees eternally, and their only interest is to

eternally serve him. Through the instructions of one swan (the Lord in the

heart) to the other (the individual self), that self is awakened and returns to

his/her original home (the absolute realm), having regained the memory that

had been lost due to material attraction.7 The Bhāgavata describes the soul’s
return in these exact terms: na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
ḥ
 sm
ṛ
tim, “he has regained his
lost memory.”8
As we have seen in the previous Chapter, the Bhāgavata compares the self’s
liberation to the melting and purification of gold.9 Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha
comments on this metaphor as follows: “[O]ne should accept one’s own
[golden] color, which is the destination of the Supreme Self and one’s
blissful spiritual form. Moreover, that jīva again (punar) becomes
unperishing (avyaya), uncovered (asa
ṁ
v
ṛ
ta), free of covering (āvara
ṇ
a-
rahita).”10
The Purañjana allegory provides us with a depiction of the complete
journey of the soul: originally existing with God, choosing to abandon his
company, wandering from birth to birth in māyā’s temporal realm, and the
reawakening of his memory with the help of his unknown friend (or God).
The story is couched in emotive language, with terms like friendship,
abandoning, wandering, and returning—calling up images of the prodigal
son. This portrayal, it should be noted, directly contradict the Bhāgavata’s
so-called anādi verses, which appear to describe bondage as beginningless.
These verses are examined below.
The Bhāgavata Asserts that
Bondage is Beginningless
The Bhāgavata employs a variety of Sanskrit terms when referring to
eternal time—e.g., śāśvata, śaśvat, nitya, anādi, and ananta, which mean
everlasting, perpetual, eternal, beginningless and endless, respectively.
When identifying something as beginningless, the Bhāgavata employs the
word anādi, which appears alongside ananta (unending) or compounded
with nidhana (end) to signify “without beginning or end.”11 Of the eleven
cases in which anādi is used, seven refer to Kṛṣṇa (Hari),12 three describe
kāla (time),13 and one refers to māyā.14 In another verse, anādi is
compounded with the words madhya and nidhana to signify “without

beginning, middle, or end” (a reference to that which is beyond prak

ṛ

ti).15

Anādi is also used in descriptions of both the cycle of creation and

destruction16 and Bhagavān’s power of ignorance (avidyā),17 which is a

manifestation of māyā.

In addition to these fifteen references, we find nine verses that specifically

describe the bondage of the jīva as anādi.18 For example, in verse 4.29.70,

anādi is used to describe the subtle body (li

ṅ

ga-rūpa), which consists of

mind, intellect, and senses and which carries the self from one physical

body to another. A similar verse describes the self’s connection with

ṁ

sāra as “beginningless” (anādi),19 and yet another describes the hard

knot of karmic residues (vāsanās) as having been present since “time

immemorial” (anādi).20

On the surface, these passages appear to suggest that just as Bhagavān

(God), kāla, and māyā are beginningless, so too is the jīva’s bondage in

ṁ

sāra. However, when considering these passages in light of other

passages in the Bhāgavata, which clearly describe a fall from an original

state, one is confronted with the possibility that anādi’s meaning may not be

as straightforward as its literal definition would suggest. The Bhāgavata’s

use of the word anādi and its claims regarding the self’s bondage are

complex. Have eternal souls been arbitrarily stuck in beginningless bondage

for no apparent reason or have they fallen from the eternal realm to the

temporal realm of bondage due to their own free will? We now carefully

explore the Bhāgavata’s resolution of this matter.

The Bhāgavata’s Resolution

As previously noted, the Bhāgavata employs a variety of terms to refer to

eternal time—terms that are used in a variety of contexts to describe a thing

as beginningless. It appears that resolving the above described dilemma

would involve knowing when these words are used in a figurative as

opposed to a literal sense. Indeed, appropriately interpreting terms like

anādi and nitya relative to the contexts in which they appear seems to have

been a point of concern within the Bhāgavata itself. As hinted above, the

problem is addressed in an eleventh book conversation between Kṛṣṇa and

Uddhava, where the issue revolves around the import of the words nitya-

mukta and nitya-baddha.

Uddhava asks Kṛṣṇa why the same ātma is said to be eternally liberated

(nitya-mukta) and eternally bound (nitya-baddha).21 His dilemma is

apparent: since “nitya” literally means “without beginning or end,” how can

the self be both eternally liberated and eternally bound? In his gloss,

Śrīdhara Svāmī rephrases the question by asking how the self that achieves

liberation can be called nitya-mukta (eternally liberated), since liberation is

something attained at a particular time.”22

At the start of the next chapter, Kṛṣṇa responds by suggesting that neither

bondage nor liberation are factual, but exist only in imagination—in the

eternal living being’s imagining of a connection with the gu

ṇ

as and in the

acceptance of the temporal body as the self: “Due to the influence of the

material modes of nature, which are under My control, the living entity is

sometimes designated as conditioned and sometimes as liberated. In fact,

however, the soul is never really bound up or liberated; and since I am the

Supreme Lord of māyā, which is the cause of the modes of nature, I also am

never to be considered liberated or in bondage.”23

In this verse, Kṛṣṇa uses the phrase na vastuta

ḥ

, meaning “without

substance” or “not in reality” to describe both the state of bondage and the

state of liberation. Here the terms nitya-mukta and nitya-baddha are said to

apply only in the realm of māyā, and not in relation to Kṛṣṇa (or God), who

is beyond māyā. Kṛṣṇa clarifies his point by employing the metaphor of a

dream: “Just as a dream is merely a creation of one’s intelligence but has no

actual substance, similarly, material lamentation, illusion, happiness,

distress and the acceptance of the material body under the influence of

māyā are all creations of My illusory energy. In other words, material

existence has no essential reality.”24 This statement, however, is in need of

further clarification.

Kṛṣṇa’s claim that bondage is unreal is not meant to imply that the

temporal realm is illusory in the sense that its perceivable forms do not

exist; rather, it is unreal or insubstantial only and precisely because those

forms are of a temporal or transient nature; they become manifest at a

certain point, develop, gradually deteriorate, and finally disappear. It has

already been shown in Chapter 2 that the Bhāgavata does not regard the

temporal realm as unreal in the strict ontological sense, but only because of

its impermanence. If something has a beginning and an end, it is unreliable

and fleeting, and thus has no ultimate existence—precisely like a dream at

night, which also has a beginning and an end. The Bhāgavata notes, in this

connection, that something which did not exist in the past and will not exist

in the future is merely a superficial designation.25

The same idea is expressed in a verse found in Bhāgavata book ten, chapter

fourteen:

The conception of material bondage and the conception of liberation are

both manifestations of ignorance. Being outside the scope of true

knowledge, they cease to exist when one correctly understands that the pure

spirit soul is distinct from matter and always fully conscious. At that time,

bondage and liberation no longer have any significance, just as day and

night have no significance from the perspective of the sun.26

Indeed, because Kṛṣṇa declares bondage to be insubstantial (11.11.2), some

commentators have reasonably concluded that the experience of bondage

has a beginning and an end. Vīrarāghava comments on Kṛṣṇa’s words as

follows:

Thus having stated that there is for Him [Kṛṣṇa] no karma-bandha, based

on the three gu

ṇ

as, now, in the verse beginning with the word śoka, the

Lord states that the jīva’s bondage in material existence (sa

ṁ

sāra-bandha)

is anitya, not eternal, because it is based on material designations.27

Vīrarāghava is both careful and radical in the use of terminology. He is so

convinced about the temporality of bondage that he chooses to use a word

that is the direct negation of nitya-baddha, namely, anitya. This is

tantamount to glossing nitya as anitya.

One may ask, however, why the Bhāgavata would refer to the conditioned

self as nitya-baddha (eternally bound) if bondage is in fact anitya? At the

outset, we may note that it is unlikely that the Bhāgavata would use “nitya”

in a strict literal sense in reference to the soul’s bondage. After all, the

Bhāgavata tells numerous stories of devotees and ascetics, such as Dhruva,

Nārada, Bharata, and Ajāmila, who received liberation and ascended to

Vaikuṇṭha at the end of their lives. If bondage were endless, the Purāṇa

would lose both its soteriological purpose and pedagogical power. Thus,

commentators such as Vīrarāghava and Viśvanātha have reasonably

conjectured that in certain contexts, words referring to time, such as nitya,

are used figuratively to suggest a very long period of time. In other words,

bondage is literally anitya, but only figuratively nitya because of its long

duration.28

Like nitya, the word anādi has also been read in a figurative sense by

commentators when it is applied to the bondage of the jīva. They often

explain anādi as “an extremely long time ago” or “so long ago, its

beginning is unknown.” A good example is chapter 26 of book five, where

Śuka states that worldly desires are caused by beginningless ignorance.

Viśvanātha comments, “[It is said that] the jīva has ignorance without

beginning, because it is impossible to say when or how the jīva developed a

relationship with ignorance.”29 In the Anvitārtha-prakāśikā commentary,

we find a similar statement regarding verse 11.11.4, “For the jīva there is

beginningless bondage due to ignorance. Beginningless [anādi] means a

very long time ago.”30

In the 25 instances of anādi, 15 refer to Bhagavān or his energies and 10

refer either to the bondage of the living beings or the life of Brahmā. In the

15 verses that refer to Bhagavān, the word anādi is either compounded with

the word nidhana (to mean without beginning or end) or is accompanied by

ananta (endless). On the contrary, all 10 instances of anādi that refer either

to the bondage of the living being or the life of Brahmā are not

accompanied by these words. Because neither Brahmā’s life nor the

bondage of the jīva is endless, commentators figure that they must have a

beginning (in the Bhāgavata, Brahmā takes birth from Viṣṇu’s navel at the

beginning of creation) and interpret anādi in a figurative rather than literal

sense, interpreting the word as “a very long time ago.”31

Indeed, there is no instance in the Bhāgavata, at least explicitly stated, of

something that is beginningless but not endless, or endless but not

beginningless. Like most Vedantic texts, the Bhāgavata divides reality into

only two categories—sat (real, eternal) and asat (unreal, temporary).32 We

never come across a third category in discussions of time. This is precisely

why anādi is so often accompanied by ananta, and when it is not,

commentators are keen to explain away anādi. In effect, anādi, ananta, and

nitya are fluid terms that are frequently used interchangeably and

figuratively, especially in relation to the soul’s bondage in māyā, despite

their obvious etymological differences.

In sum, it seems reasonable to assume that the Bhāgavata does not regard

bondage as beginningless for the following three reasons: (1) although there

are a handful of occasions where the Bhāgavata describes bondage with

words such as “nitya” (eternal) and “anādi” (beginningless), it appears that

these words are used in a figurative sense; (2) the Bhāgavata’s Purañjana

narrative indicates that the jīva was originally with God in his abode, and

that bondage ensued as a result of the jīva’s misuse of free will (i.e., from a

type of “fall”); and (3) there are passages in which the Bhāgavata clearly

speaks of bondage as “forgetfulness” and liberation as a “return to” or

“remembrance of” an original form or state of being.

When it comes to the notion of a “fall from” and a “return to” some sort of

absolute spiritual status, the role of “grace” has received a great deal of

attention from religionists worldwide. What does the Bhāgavata say about

this important theological topic? The remainder of this chapter is dedicated

to finding out.

Individual Effort and Grace in the

Attainment of Liberation

Different theological traditions, in both the East and the West, have

different perspectives on the balance between individual effort and

unmerited favor when it comes to the attainment of God’s ultimate grace

(freedom from temporal bondage and transference to God’s eternal abode).

In a telling parable, which comes in part from the Ramanuja tradition, these

varying perspectives are compared to the mother cat’s “saving” of her

kitten, the mother monkey’s “saving” of her infant, and the human mother’s

“saving” of a child that has fallen into a well.

The belief that individual effort plays absolutely no role in the receipt of

God’s grace is exemplified by the mother cat, who picks her kitten up by

the scruff of the neck and carries it from danger, as it dangles without effort

in her mouth. The belief that God’s grace is wholly and solely a response to

individual effort (prayers, devotional acts, good deeds, etc.) is exemplified

by the mother monkey, whose infant must cling by its own strength to her

back as she carries it from danger. Finally, the view that God’s grace

involves a balance between individual effort and divine intervention is

exemplified by the human mother. To extricate her child from danger, the

mother throws down a rope, and in that sense the entire rescue depends on

her intervening by throwing down and pulling up the rope. On the other

hand, the child plays her part as well, for unless she clings to that rope by

her own individual effort, the mother’s pulling cannot save her.

Of course, equating the mother’s “well rescue” to God’s grace appears to

indicate that God is somehow limited—that he cannot effect a rescue

without our simultaneous effort. Those that adhere to the “well rescue”

view, however, point out that although God is certainly capable of rescuing

us without our help or participation, there is also the matter of free will and

choice—fundamental aspects of being that we droplets of water share with

the sea that is God. As such, whether we reside in temporal bondage or

absolute freedom is determined not by God’s will but rather by our own.

God’s will is always to benefit and uplift all beings, thus he casts down the

rope into the well; but because we have free will, it is we who must choose

to grab onto that liberating rope, and thus be hoisted up from bondage.

Interestingly, during the high middle ages, a dispute about the balance

between effort and grace arose between two prominent disciples of

Rāmānuja: Vedanta Deshika (CE 1268–1369), who taught in Kanchipuram,

in the northern part of the Tamil territory, and Pillai Lokacharya (CE 1264–

1327), who taught further south at Shrirangam.33 This dispute, which

centered around the matters of God’s grace and equality of vision,

continued long after the departure of these philosophical rivals, eventually

forming two schools of thought on grace: the Southern school, more or less

representing the “cat” position (emphasizing causeless grace), and the

Northern school, more or less representing the “monkey” position

(emphasizing individual effort).

Those that adhere to the southern “cat” school reason that if God extends

his grace only in response to an individual’s devotional deeds, attitudes,

and/or qualifications, this would make such grace conditional and selective,

thus contradicting the notion that God is equal to all. In contrast, those that

adhere to the southern “monkey” school reason that if God extends his

grace without taking into consideration an individual’s devotional deeds,

attitudes, and/or qualification, this would make such grace completely

arbitrary, awarding favor to some but not to others on a whim and without

just cause, thus contradicting the notion that God is equal to all. Both sides,

in other words, see God contradicting his equality of vision in different

ways. Where does the Bhāgavata stand?

As will be seen, the Bhāgavata more or less represents the third, “mother-

child-well,” alternative, which posits that although God is theoretically free

to extend his grace to whomever he likes, such grace is generally extended

in response to an individual’s devotional deeds, attitudes, and qualifications.

In other words, although God is certainly powerful enough to liberate

anyone he likes, he will generally not interfere with an individual’s free

will, since it is freedom of choice that makes love of God possible. Love, by

definition, must be freely chosen. In the remaining sections of this chapter

we will explore the Bhāgavata’s particular understanding of God’s grace.

A Brief Overview of the

Bhāgavata’s Position on Grace

We can begin our exploration with the Bhagavad-gītā, the Bhāgavata’s

precursor, said to have been spoken by Kṛṣṇa himself—the same Kṛṣṇa

that the Bhāgavata claims to be the supreme being. Here is a sample of what

the Gītā tells us about the nature of God’s grace:

As they surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Every follows my

path in all respects [4.9–11]. Those who are not faithful in this devotional

service cannot attain Me, and thus they return to the path of birth and death

in this material world [9.3]. But those who always worship Me with

exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form – to them I carry

what they lack, and I preserve what they have [9.22]. To those who are

constantly devoted to Me and worship Me with love, I give the

understanding by which they can come to Me. I dwelling within their

hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of

ignorance [10.10–11]. Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship

Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail

… [18.65].34

The above passages make it abundantly clear that from Kṛṣṇa’s

perspective, as represented in the Gītā, individual effort is integrally

involved in the attainment of ultimate liberation. Turning now to the

Bhāgavata, one finds throughout its pages numerous discussions regarding

the various practices and procedures by which one can arouse God’s grace

and awaken one’s dormant love for God. At the heart of these practices and

procedures stands bhakti (devotion), described as the principle means to

attract Kṛṣṇa and attain ultimate liberation.

In the Bhāgavata’s seventh book, bhakti is said to consist of activities such

as hearing about God’s name, form, qualities, and activities, glorifying,

worshiping, and remembering God, offering one’s prayers to God, actively

serving God’s interests, and giving one’s entire life to God.35 These various

forms of bhakti are exemplified in descriptions of ideal devotees, who

attained freedom from māyā by performing one or more of these devotional

activities. But is it merely the performance of a particular activity (one’s

own self-endeavor) that leads the bound to freedom, or is there something

else that is involved?

The Bhāgavata answers this question in the affirmative, noting that just as

one who is drowning at sea cannot save herself, one who is bound by māyā

cannot free herself from māyā’s grip—i.e., the drowning person requires an

outside person to throw the rope and hoist her up.36

Here the part played by grace and that played by individual effort becomes

apparent, for God reveals himself only to those that attract his favor.

Sincere bhakti is said to be the means by which to attract God, but God’s

reciprocation is essential for ultimate success; our participation is required

but God’s grace is key. The devotee endeavors to approach God through

acts of devotion, but ultimately depends upon God for the result—for God,

the Bhāgavata tells us, is a wholly independent being, bound only by the

unalloyed love of his pure devotees. He is free to reveal himself or to

remain unseen as he likes.

The Bhāgavata privileges devotion (bhakti) over knowledge (jñāna) and

action (karma) precisely because it is devotion that inspires God’s grace:

“The unlimited Lord invariably extends his mercy to those that entirely take

shelter at his feet, and thus they cross beyond insurmountable illusion

(māyā); not so for those that remain selfishly absorbed in bodily delights,

always thinking in terms of “I” and “mine.”37

In the Bhāgavata’s seventh book, the renowned bhakta Prahlāda speaks of

the unique power of bhakti to attract the favor of the Supreme Lord, noting

that qualifications such as wealth, physical strength, beauty, charisma,

knowledge, determination, intelligence, austerity, mystic perfection, and so

forth are insufficient when it comes to pleasing [attracting or gaining the

favor of] the Supreme Lord.38

Interestingly, there are numerous passages and narratives in which the

Bhāgavata speaks of another means by which God’s favor may be obtained:

gaining the favor of the great saintly devotees who are his dearmost

representatives. One such narrative, found early in the Bhāgavata’s first

book, displays the power and effectiveness of such saintly association.

Briefly discussed below, it is the first-person account of Nārada and how he

obtained the favor of Hari (Kṛṣṇa).39

The Bhāgavata Speaks of Nārada’s

Life

Nārada, one of the Bhāgavata’s most celebrated sages, had previously taken

birth as a lower class śūdra. One year, while still a small boy, Nārada and

his mother hosted a group of saintly sages for the four months of the rainy

season, during which time Nārada took the opportunity to hear their talks

about Kṛṣṇa (God) and humbly serve them in various ways. Although

impartial by nature, these great bhāgavatas appreciated the child’s good

qualities, and thus showed him favor.40 In this way, the boy’s misgivings

were destroyed, his devotion for Kṛṣṇa increased, and the very lifestyle of

the sages became attractive to him.

Shortly after the sages’ departure, Nārada’s mother unexpectedly died, and

although still an inexperienced child, he immediately left home and began

wandering to many lands,41 passing through numerous cities, towns,

mountains, and forests. In one such forest,42 he stopped, sat down, and

began deeply meditating on Hari (Kṛṣṇa). Suddenly, his mind became

overwhelmed with devotion, tears flowed from his eyes, and Hari himself

appeared within Nārada’s heart, thus overwhelming him with symptoms of

ecstatic love.43 Suddenly, Hari disappeared and Nārada was unable to re-

invoke his presence by any means, thus filling the child with intense

feelings of sorrow and longing.

To comfort Nārada, the Lord, while staying invisible, spoke as follows:

“This is the only time you will see me in your present life, for those that are

not yet cleansed of all material desires cannot behold me. Yet, to increase

your love for me, I decided to reveal myself this one time.44 But please do

not lament; due to your devoted service to the sages, my pure devotees,

your mind is now firmly fixed in me. Thus, after leaving this inferior

temporal realm, you will become one of my direct personal attendants.”45

Studying the above synopsis, we find in the person of Nārada the

paradigmatic unqualified recipient of grace: a śūdra engaged in menial

work, with no access to the Vedas or brāhma

ṇ

ical education. And yet, he

becomes a great bhakta (devotee) by the grace (anugraha) of the visiting

sādhus46 (saints), through whom he eventually obtains the grace of the

Lord. In the Bhāgavata’s eleventh book, Kṛṣṇa advises Uddhava that

associating with and following in the footsteps of mahātmās (great souls) is

the most effective means of overcoming māyā.47 For this destroys

attachment to the world of matter and “captures” Kṛṣṇa within the heart:48

Neither the practice of eightfold yoga, the study of Sāṁkhya, the

performance of Vedic sacrifices, study of scriptures, austerities,

renunciation, charity, vows of fasting, worship of the divine image,

recitation of secret mantras, visiting of sacred places, nor adherence to

regulative principles is as effective [in terms of attracting Kṛṣṇa] as

associating with mahātmās.49

But why was Nārada so fortunate as to receive the grace of sādhus? The

Bhāgavata states that the sages, who were equally disposed toward all,

nonetheless showed favor to Nārada—a serious, obedient, self-controlled

boy, who humbly and silently saw to their needs.50 Here the Bhāgavata

seems to suggest that Nārada received the grace of the sādhus because of

his good qualities and his menial service. Viśvanātha, however, argues in

his commentary that since sages see everyone equally—the good and the

bad, the praiseworthy and the blameworthy, the well-behaved and the sinful

—they do not show favor to one person and reject another. Thus,

Viśvanātha explains, their initial mercy was not exactly due to Nārada’s

good qualities and personal service (surrender): “If one says that although

they had equal vision, they showed mercy because he showed good

qualities, then their equal vision would be contradicted by their seeing good

and bad qualities. One should not explain in this way because then the first

mercy would be prejudiced.”51

Viśvanātha’s analysis, however, leads to the following question: if the sages

were indeed impartial in distributing their mercy, their association and their

knowledge of God, why was little Nārada the only recipient of their initial

grace and not the others that were in their vicinity? Nārada’s own mother,

for example, was also involved in the sages’ service, yet the text never

mentions that she also received their grace to such an extent. The

Bhāgavata’s answer is that while the grace of the impartial sadhus is there

for all persons regardless of their good or bad qualifications, the degree to

which that mercy is accepted depends upon the personal inclination of each

individual. Some may be very eager to associate with and serve the sages,

some may be less eager, etc., and some may not want to associate with them

at all. Others may even prefer to vilify or attack the sages, instead of taking

advantage of their merciful association. Their mercy is there for all, but

how that mercy is received remains a matter of personal choice and

inclination. When it rains, the rain pours down its waters on cement

sidewalks, dusty roads, and fields of rich soil without discrimination. The

water is there for all but only the rich soil (because of its soft nature) takes

full advantage of the rain to produce the grains, fruits, and vegetables that

sustain life.

In keeping with this view, Viśvanātha affirms that although the grace of the

sages is available to all without discrimination, the recipient that is more

favorably inclined and piously directed is more likely to accept that grace.52

“When the hardness of the heart caused by gu

ṇ

as is destroyed and becomes

soft by devotion to the Lord, mercy will appear in the heart.”53 Other

Bhāgavata commentators, Sanātana Gosvāmin and Jīva Gosvāmi, tend to

agree with Viśvanātha’s reading of the Bhāgavata’s position on grace.54

Perhaps one can find a case in which a completely undeserving and

unfavorable candidate has taken full advantage of the causeless mercy of

saints. However, this would likely be the exception rather than the rule.

Narada’s initial impulse to associate with the sages, and his inclination to

serve and listen as they conversed about God, positioned him such that he

was able to take full advantage of their grace, which, as always, remained

available to all.

Thus, it would be difficult to argue, on the basis of the Bhāgavata’s

theology, that grace is completely causeless; for such a view would

undermine the need to cultivate spiritual knowledge and/or engage in any of

the named practices that are said to engender bhakti within the heart. The

Purāṇa itself, and its message of service to sādhus, would become

irrelevant, making the study of scripture pointless. The text continuously

urges its readers to perform acts of service to evoke the Lord’s grace. As

Prahlāda55 points out in the seventh book, “Your grace (prasāda), like the

wish-yielding heavenly tree, depends proportionately on the service (sevā)

rendered to you.”56

Caste and Freedom from Māyā

The single most important feature of the Bhāgavata is its emphasis on

bhakti directed toward Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu. Because bhakti is intrinsically

related to divine grace (anugraha) the Bhāgavata repeatedly stresses the

independence of bhakti from all considerations of the body and society.57

The Purāṇa is particularly concerned to establish that a person’s birth,

social status, gender, and caste (var

ṇ

a) are not significant determinants of

liberation or bhakti. The Bhāgavata illustrates this claim with narratives of

several exemplary figures who are not gods, brāhma

ṇ

as, or men, but rather

demons, women, and children. The child-devotee Prahlāda, for example,

was born in a family of demonic daityas. In his prayers to Nṛsiṁha, the

half-man half-lion incarnation of Visnu, he expresses what turns out to be a

concise statement of the Bhāgavata’s social theory:

I consider that a man of the dog-eating (ca

ṇḍ

āla) caste, who has

thoroughly dedicated his mind, speech, deed, wealth, and his very life itself

to the Lord, is superior to a brāhma

ṇ

a endowed with the twelve qualities

but averse to the lotus-like feet of Lord Viṣṇu; for the low-caste devotee

sanctifies his whole race but not so the brāhma

ṇ

a even though he is highly

respected by the public.58

To be sure, the Bhāgavata does not privilege the lower var

ṇ

as over

brāhma

ṇ

as, or reject the var

ṇ

a system altogether. Numerous passages

praise the brāhma

ṇ

as as greater than the gods. Reverence for brāhma

ṇ

as is

an important part of many narratives, and even “Kṛṣṇa himself says in the

tenth book that he repeatedly offers homage to the brāhma

ṇ

a caste since

they are the best friends of living entities.”59 Nevertheless, the Bhāgavata

upholds the var

ṇ

a system only to relativize it and subordinate it to the

transformative power of bhakti. In the third book, for instance, we read that

by hearing or repeating God’s name occasionally, even outcastes gain the

status of brāhma

ṇ

as. They become qualified to study the Veda and perform

Vedic sacrifices.60

The relativization of var

ṇ

a includes questioning the role of birth as the

determinant of a person’s social position. After describing the qualities of

each var

ṇ

a, for example, Nārada states that a person’s var

ṇ

a is determined

by one’s qualities and actions, not birth.61 In his study of the social teaching

of the Bhāgavata, Hopkins has similarly observed:

The Bhāgavata does not, in fact, criticize the caste system as such … It

follows instead the policy that can be seen in some of the sectarian portions

of the Mahābhārata: acceptance of the concept of class divisions having

definite distinguishing characteristics, but rejection of the idea that

membership in these classes or possession of their characteristics is the

inevitable result of one’s birth.62

Indeed, so determined is the Bhāgavata to demonstrate the all-

encompassing power of bhakti, that it goes so far as to suggest that a

śūdra’s humble status is more conducive to bhakti than the dominant

positions of other var

ṇ

as. Hopkins notes, “Among the characteristics of a

śūdra are said to be humility, purity, truth, and service to his master without

guile, all of which make him ideally suited for devotion, as well as for his

traditional servile role.”63 It is no coincidence, for example, that Nārada, the

de facto bhakti saint of the Bhāgavata, started his journey in a śūdra family,

and yet appears repeatedly throughout the text as the teacher of devotees

like Prahlāda, Dhruva, and Vyāsa. The narrative of Vṛtrāsura offers another

fine example: despite being a demon by birth (and looks), Vṛtrāsura is

lauded as an exemplary devotee of Viṣṇu and superior even to Indra, who

ends up receiving instruction from the demon.64 The Bhāgavata thus

appropriates and transforms the ancient narrative of Vṛtrāsura (found even

in the

Ṛ

gveda), using it in the service of bhakti.

The Bhāgavata prescribes many acts that engender the grace of God, but

three bhakti practices are specifically pointed out as exceptionally powerful

methods for gaining freedom from māyā: hearing the Bhāgavata (śrava

ṇ

a),

chanting the Lord’s name (kīrtana), and meditation on his form (vi

ṣṇ

ḥ

smara

ṇ

a).

These practices are considered exceptionally powerful because God’s

names, activities, and forms are his manifestations. They are for the purpose

of bestowing grace (anugraha) upon the devotee. “May that glorious

Supreme Lord of infinite attributes be gracious unto me—the Lord who

though above material names and forms, manifests forms, names, and

pastimes for the sake of bestowing grace upon those who seek shelter at his
feet.”65 Let us now examine each one of the devotional acts of hearing,
chanting, and meditating.
Hearing the Bhāgavata
The Bhāgavata prescribes many acts that engender the grace of God, but it
considers hearing of its own text to be the most effective and immediate
way to transcend māyā. The Bhāgavata promises numerous benefits by
hearing and studying its text—purification from sins, freedom from fear, the
results of studying the Vedas, fulfillment of all desires, liberation, and
attainment of the supreme abode.66
Indeed, the Bhāgavata affirms that Kṛṣṇa personally destroys the bondage
of a person who listens to discussion of his glories, which bestows
happiness and remains forever fresh.67 Other topics of discussion, however,
receive robust criticism:
Speech, which, though full of figurative expressions, never utters the
praises of Śrī Hari—the praises that possess the virtue of sanctifying the
whole world—is considered to be the delight of voluptuous men, who
wallow in the pleasures of the senses like crows that feed upon the dirty
leavings of food.68
The Bhāgavata believes that hearing its text is the most immediate and
effective way to transcend māyā because it is none other than Kṛṣṇa.
Kṛṣṇa is manifest “in the sound vibration of the Vedas (vā
ṇ
ī)”69 and the
Bhāgavata considers the Purāṇas and histories like the Mahābhārata
(itihāsa) to be the fifth Veda.70 Being one of the Purāṇas, and the “choicest
essence of all Vedas and histories,”71 the Bhāgavata is Kṛṣṇa in sound
form. Not only is the Bhāgavata the essence of the Veda, but it supersedes
the Veda. The Bhāgavata states that after compiling all the Vedas, Purāṇas
and itihāsas, Vyāsa compiled this Bhāgavata because without it he felt his
work to be incomplete. This Purāṇa, therefore, is “the ripened fruit of the
wish-fulfilling tree of the Vedas.”72 After the departure of Kṛṣṇa, the

Bhāgavata has taken his place. “This Bhāgavata Purāṇa is as brilliant as the

sun, and it has arisen just after the departure of Kṛṣṇa to his own abode,

accompanied by religion, knowledge, and so forth. Persons who have lost

their vision due to the dense darkness of ignorance in the age of Kali shall

get light from this Purāṇa.”73

The Bhāgavata’s conviction in its ability to give freedom from māyā is

demonstrated in the frame story of the entire work—King Parīkṣit listens to

the Bhāgavata from Śuka-deva continuously for seven days and receives

liberation at the end.74 Sūta also heard the Bhāgavata from Śuka-deva and

later repeated it to the sages of Naimiṣāraṇya, in order to ameliorate the

effects of the upcoming dark age, Kali-yuga.75 Indeed, Nārada makes a

fascinating claim in this regard: by learning about the Lord’s māyā, one

achieves freedom from māyā. “The soul of the person who describes the

māyā of the Almighty or who gives his approbation to this or who always

devoutly listens to this, is not bewildered by māyā.”76 The tenth book sums

it up well: “By thinking about, reciting, and hearing the beautiful stories of

Mukunda, which constantly become more in number, a person [attains to]

his incomparable abode, and overcomes death. Even rulers of the earth left

their communities to go into the forest for this purpose.”77

In closing, it should be noted that all that has been said of the practice of

hearing (or reading) the Bhāgavata can be equally said of chanting (or

repeating) the names of Kṛṣṇa (or God). With regard to such chanting

(kīrtana), the Bhāgavata states that whatever benefits had been received in

earlier ages by meditation, sacrifice, or the worship of sacred images can be

obtained in the age of Kali simply by singing the names of Hari (hari-

kīrtana):78 “The age of Kali is an ocean of faults, but there is one great

quality—simply by repeating Kṛṣṇa’s names, one can become liberated

from attachment and attain the highest destination.”79

Māyā in the Bhāgavata Purāņa: Human Suffering and Divine Play. Gopal

K. Gupta, Oxford University Press (2020).

1 BhP 4.28.52.

2 Visvanatha’s commentary on BhP 4.28.52, mā
ṁ
 ki
ṁ
 jānāsīti nanu tvam
eva vipro mama ka ity ata āha, sakhāyam iti. katha
ṁ
 tvayā saha mama
sakhyam ity ata āha, yena mayā saha agre s
ṛṣṭ
e
ḥ
pūrva
ṁ
 vicacartha. mayy
eva militvā mat-sa
ṅ
gena sukham anubhūtavān tvam evāsīr ity artha
ḥ
 ||52||
3 BhP 4.28.53:
api smarasi cātmānam avijñāta-sakha
ṁ
 sakhe
hitvā mā
ṁ
 padam anvicchan bhauma-bhoga-rato gata
ḥ
 ||53||
4 BhP 4.28.54:
ha
ṁ
sāv aha
ṁ
 ca tva
ṁ
 cārya sakhāyau mānasāyanau
abhūtām antarā vauka
ḥ
sahasra-parivatsarān ||54||
5 Vīrarāghava’s comments on BhP 4.28.54, trans. Tagare, hinasti nirasyati
vikārān iti ha
ṁ
sa
ḥ
6 Śrīdhara Svāmin’s comments on BhP 4.28.54, sūk
ṣ
ma-śarīra-gata
ṁ
h
ṛ
dayam.
7 BhP 4.28.64:
eva
ṁ
 sa mānaso ha
ṁ
so ha
ṁ
sena pratibodhita
ḥ
sva-sthas tad-vyabhicāre
ṇ
a na
ṣṭ
ām āpa puna
ḥ
 sm
ṛ
tim ||64||
8 BhP 4.28.64.
9 BhP 11.14.25:
yathāgninā hema mala
ṁ
 jahāti dhmāta
ṁ
 puna
ḥ
 sva
ṁ
 bhajate ca rūpam
ātmā ca karmānuśaya
ṁ
 vidhūya mad-bhakti-yogena bhajaty atho mām
||25||
10 Vijayadhvaja Tīrtha, of the Madhva Sampradāya, comments on BhP
11.14.25, trans. H. D. Goswami in Our Original Position, p. 89:

nija-var
ṇ
a
ṁ
 paramātma-gatim, ānanda-svarūpa
ṁ
 ca bhajeta.
kiñca sa jīva
ḥ
 punar avyayo ‘sa
ṁ
v
ṛ
ta
ḥ
 āvara
ṇ
a-rahito bhavati. ||25||
11 anādi is combined with the word nidhana in four verses (BhP 1.8.28,
BhP 11.3.8, BhP 12.6.2,
BhP 12.11.50) and with the word anta in seven verses (BhP 2.6.40, BhP
3.29.45, BhP 4.11.19, BhP 7.3.30, BhP 11.16.1, BhP 12.4.19, BhP 12.4.37).
12 BhP 12.6.2, BhP 12.11.50, BhP 2.6.40, BhP 7.3.30, BhP 11.16.1, BhP
12.4.37, BhP 1.8.28.
13 BhP 11.3.8, BhP 3.29.45, BhP 4.11.19.
14 BhP 12.4.19: anādy anantam avyakta
ṁ
 nitya
ṁ
 kāra
ṇ
am avyayam.
15 BhP 2.10.34:
ata
ḥ
 para
ṁ
 sūk
ṣ
matamam avyakta
ṁ
 nirviśe
ṣ
a
ṇ
am
anādi-madhya-nidhana
ṁ
 nitya
ṁ
 vā
ṅ
-manasa
ḥ
 param ||34||
16 BhP 12.10.4:
etat kecid avidvā
ṁ
so māyā-sa
ṁ
s
ṛ
tim ātmana
ḥ
anādy-āvartita
ṁ
 nè
ṇ
ā
ṁ
 kādācitka
ṁ
 pracak
ṣ
ate ||4||
17 BhP 12.11.29:
anādy-avidyayā vi
ṣṇ
or ātmana
ḥ
 sarva-dehinām
nirmito loka-tantro ‘ya
ṁ
 loke
ṣ
u parivartate ||29||
18 BhP 4.29.70, BhP 5.14.1, BhP 5.25.8, BhP 5.26.3, BhP 6.5.11, BhP
8.24.46, BhP 10.77.32, BhP
11.11.4, BhP 11.22.10.
19 BhP 5.14.1: anādi-sa
ṁ
sārānubhavasya.

20 BhP 5.25.8:
anādi-kāla-karma-vāsanā-grathitam avidyāmāya
ṁ
 h
ṛ
daya-granthim |8|
21 BhP 11.10.37:
etad acyuta me brūhi praāna
ṁ
 praśna-vidā
ṁ
 vara
nitya-baddho nitya-mukta eka eveti me bhrama
ḥ
 ||37||
22 Śrīdhara Svāmin’s commentary on BhP 11.10.37, trans. H. D. Goswami
in Our Original Position, p. 54: mukter janyatve ‘nityatva-prasa
ṅ
gān nitya-
mukta ity apy a
ṅ
gī-kārya
ṁ
 syāt. tatra me bhramo bhavatīty āha. ||37||
23 BhP 11.11.1, trans. H.D. Goswami:
baddho mukta iti vyākhyā gu
ṇ
ato me na vastuta
ḥ
gu
ṇ
asya māyā-mūlatvān na me mok
ṣ
o na bandhanam ||1||
24 BhP 11.11.2, trans. H.D. Goswami:
śoka-mohau sukha
ṁ
 du
ḥ
kha
ṁ
 dehāpattiś ca māyayā
svapno yathātmana
ḥ
 khyāti
ḥ
 sa
ṁ
s
ṛ
tir na tu vāstavī ||2||
25 BhP 11.28.21:
na yat purastād uta yan na paścān madhye ca tan na vyapadeśa mātram
bhūta
ṁ
 prasiddha
ṁ
 ca pare
ṇ
a yad yat tad eva tat syād iti me manī
ṣ
ā ||21||
26 BhP 10.14.26 trans. H.D. Goswami.
27 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s commentary on BhP 11.11.2, trans. H. D.
Goswami in Our Original Position, p. 57: eva
ṁ
 svasya gu
ṇ
a-traya-karma-
bandhābhāvam uktvā jīvasyāpi sa
ṁ
sāra-bandha aupādhikatvād anitya ity
āha śoketi. ||2||
28 Vīrarāghava Gosvāmin’s commentary on BhP 11.11.2: eva
ṁ
 svasya
gu
ṇ
a-traya-karma-bandhābhāvam uktvā jīvasyāpi sa
ṁ
sāra-bandha

aupādhikatvād anitya ity āha śoketi. ||2||
29 Viśvanātha’s commentary on BhP 5.26.3 trans. based on H.D. Goswami:
anādy-avidyā-sambandho jīvasya kadā katha
ṁ
 veti vaktum aśakte
ḥ
. ||3||
30 Anvitārtha-prakāśikā on BhP 11.11.4 trans. based on H.D. Goswami:
asya jīvasyaivāvidyayānādir bahu-kāliko bandho ‘sti.
31 Anvitārtha-prakāśikā on BhP 11.11.4.
32 See, for example, BhP 1.2.30, 1.3.33, 1.5.27, 2.5.6, 2.6.33, 2.6.42, 2.7.50,
2.9.33, 3.1.14, 3.5.25, 3.15.6, 3.22.4, 3.26.9, 3.26.10, 3.27.3.
33 Srilata Raman, Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvai
ṣṇ
avism: Tamil
Cats and Sanskrit Monkeys, Routledge Hindu Studies Series (New York:
Routledge, 2006), 4.
34 Bhagavad-gītā, trans. Bhaktivedanta Swami.
35 BhP 7.5.23:
śrava
ṇ
a
ṁ
 kīrtana
ṁ
 vi
ṣṇ
o
ḥ
 smara
ṇ
a
ṁ
 pāda-sevanam
arcana
ṁ
 vandana
ṁ
 dāsya
ṁ
 sakhyam ātma-nivedanam ||23||
36 BhP 8.17.28.
37 BhP 2.7.41, trans. Gupta and Valpey:
nānta
ṁ
 vidāmy aham amī munayo ‘gra jās te māyā-balasya puru
ṣ
asya
kuto ‘varā ye
gāyan gu
ṇ
ān daśa śatānana ādi deva
ḥ
 śe
ṣ
o ‘dhunāpi samavasyati nāsya
pāram
38 BhP 7.9.9.
39 BhP 1.5–6.
40 BhP 1.5.24.
41 BhP 1.5.24.
42 BhP 1.6.10:
tadā tad aham īśasya bhaktānā
ṁ
 śam abhīpsata
ḥ
anugraha
ṁ
 manyamāna
ḥ
 prāti
ṣṭ
ha
ṁ
 diśam uttarām ||10||

43 BhP 1.6.18.

44 BhP 1.6.22–3l:

hantāsmiñ janmani bhavān mā mā

ṁ

dra

ṣṭ

um ihārhati

avipakva-ka

ṣ

āyā

ṇ

ṁ

durdarśo ‘ha

ṁ

kuyoginām ||22||

sak

ṛ

d yad darśita

ṁ

rūpam etat kāmāya te ‘nagha

mat-kāma

ḥ

śanakai

ḥ

sādhu sarvān muñcati h

ṛ

c-chayān ||23||

45 BhP 1.6.24:

sat-sevayādīrghayāpi jātā mayi d

ṛḍ

hā mati

ḥ

hitvāvadyam ima

ṁ

loka

ṁ

gantā maj-janatām asi ||24||

46 BhP 1.5.26:

tatrānvaha

ṁ

ṛṣṇ

a-kathā

ḥ

pragāyatām

anugrahe

ṇ

āś

ṛṇ

ava

ṁ

manoharā

ḥ

||26||

47 BhP 11.12.

48 BhP 11.12.2:

vratāni yajñaś chandā

ṁ

si tīrthāni niyamā yamā

ḥ

yathāvarundhe sat-sa

ṅ

ḥ

sarva-sa

ṅ

gāpaho hi mām ||2||

49 BhP 11.12.1 trans. based on Tagare:

na rodhayati mā

ṁ

yogo na sā

ṅ

khya

ṁ

dharma eva ca

na svādhyāyas tapas tyāgo ne

ṣṭ

ā-pūrta

ṁ

na dak

ṣ

ṇ

ā ||1||

50 BhP 1.5.24:

te mayy apetākhila-cāpale ‘rbhake dānte ‘dh

ṛ

ta-krī

ḍ

anake ‘nuvartini

cakru

ḥ

ṛ

pā

ṁ

yadyapi tulya-darśanā

ḥ

śuśrū

ṣ

amā

ṇ

e munayo ‘lpa-bhā

ṣ

ṇ

||24||

51 Viśvanātha’s commentary on BhP 1.5.24. In Ṭhākura, First Canto

Commentaries Śrīmad Bhāgavatam, trans. Bhanu Swami.

dānte niyatendriye adh

ṛ

ta-krī

ḍ

anake bālyocita

ṁ

krī

ḍ

anam apy akurvati |

yadyapi te tulya-darśanā

ḥ

suśīle

ṣ

u du

ḥ

kha-śīle

ṣ

u ca sat-kurvatsu

tiraskurvatsu ca sad-ācāre

ṣ

u durācāre

ṣ

u ca jagaj-jane

ṣ

u yadyapi sama-

ṛṣṭ

aya

ḥ

ko vā te

ṣ

ām anugrāhya

ḥ

ko vā nigrāhyas tad api mayi k

ṛ

pā

ṁ

cakru

ḥ

| sarvatra sāmye’pi mahatsu bharata-prahlādādi

ṣ

u k

ṛ

pāyā

vai

ṣ

amya-darśanād iti bhāva

ḥ

| atra mat-sauśīlyānuv

ṛ

ttyādikam

anapek

ṣ

yaiva prathama

ṁ

ṛ

pā

ṁ

cakru

ḥ

| tataś ca tat-k

ṛ

pā-janya-

sauśīlyānuv

ṛ

tty-ādika

ṁ

punar api te

ṣ

ṁ

ṛ

pātiśayasyaiva kāra

ṇ

am abhūd

iti te

ṣ

ṁ

nirupādhikara

ṇ

atvam apy avaśyam eva vyākhyeyam | te yadyapi

tulya-darśanās tad api acāpalyādi-gu

ṇ

a-viśi

ṣṭ

e mayi k

ṛ

pā

ṁ

cakrur iti

vyākhyāne gu

ṇ

a-do

ṣ

a-darśana-prasaktyā te

ṣ

ṁ

tulya-darśanatva

ṁ

vyāhanyeta | prathama-k

ṛ

pāyāś ca nirupādhitva

ṁ

na syād iti na tathā

vyākhyeyam |

52 Viśvanātha’s comments on BhP 11.20.9.

53 Viśvanātha’s commentary on BhP 1.5.24. In Ṭhākura, trans. Bhanu

Swami, First Canto Commentaries Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (Vrindavan, India):

iti śukokta-nyāyena kadācit kam api jana

ṁ

ṣ

ayīkaroti sāhyanta

ḥ

kara

ṇ

asya gu

ṇ

a-k

ṛ

tāyā

ḥ

ṭ

horatāyā bhagavad-bhaktyaiva dhva

ṁ

se sati

tayaiva dravībhāvam ādite tatraivānta

ḥ

-kara

ṇ

e āvirbhavet ||

54 See Sanātana Gosvāmin and Jiva Gosvāmin’s commentary on BhP

10.20.36, trans. Bhanu Swami.

55 Child-saints are a feature of bhakti narratives found throughout the

Purāṇas. Regarding the story of Prahlāda, Soifer, has noted, “To intensify

the struggle of the devotee against the violent ignorance of Hiraṇyakaśipu

and to bring to the fore the gentleness of Viṣṇu, which is personified in his

soulmate, the devotee Prahlada is … [portrayed as] but a young lad of

approximately five years.” Deborah A. Soifer, The Myths of Narasi

ṁ

and Vāmana: Two Avatars in Cosmological Perspective, Suny Series in

Hindu Studies (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 95.

56 BhP 7.9.27 trans. based on Tagare:

nai

ṣ

ā parāvara-matir bhavato nanu syāj

jantor yathātma-suh

ṛ

do jagatas tathāpi

ṁ

sevayā surataror iva te prasāda

ḥ

sevānurūpam udayo na parāvaratvam ||27||

57 BhP 2.7.42:

ṣ

ṁ

sa e

ṣ

a bhagavān dayayed ananta

ḥ

sarvātmanāśrita pado yadi nirvyalīkam

te dustarām atitaranti ca deva māyā

ṁ

nai

ṣ

ṁ

mamāham iti dhī

ḥ

śva ś

ṛ

gāla bhak

ṣ

ye ||42||

58 BhP 7.9.10 trans. based on Bhaktivedanta Swami:

viprād dvi

ṣ

ḍ

ṇ

a yutād aravinda nābha

pādāravinda vimukhāt śvapaca

ṁ

vari

ṣṭ

ham

manye tad arpita mano vacanehitārtha

prā

ṇ

ṁ

punāti sa kula

ṁ

na tu bhūrimāna

ḥ

||10||

59 BhP 10.52.33, trans. Bryant:

viprān sva lābha santu

ṣṭ

ān sādhūn bhūta suh

ṛ

ttamān

niraha

ṅ

kāri

ṇ

ḥ

śāntān namasye śirasāsak

ṛ

t ||33||

60 BhP 3.33.6–7:
yan-nāmadheya-śrava
ṇ
ānukīrtanād yat-prahva
ṇ
ād yat-smara
ṇ
ād api
kvacit
śvādo ‘pi sadya
ḥ
 savanāya kalpate kuta
ḥ
 punas te bhagavan nu darśanāt
||6||
aho bata śva-paco ‘to garīyān yaj-jihvāgre vartate nāma tubhyam
tepus tapas te juhuvu
ḥ
 sasnur āryā brahmānūcur nāma g
ṛṇ
anti ye te ||7||
61 BhP 7.11.35:
yasya yal lak
ṣ
a
ṇ
a
ṁ
 prokta
ṁ
 pu
ṁ
so var
ṇ
ābhivyañjakam
yad anyatrāpi d
ṛ
śyeta tat tenaiva vinirdiśet ||35||
62 Hopkins, “The Social Teaching of the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a,” 16.
63 “The Social Teaching of the Bhāgavata Purā
ṇ
a,” 17.
64 See BhP 6.9–12.
65 BhP 6.4.33 trans. based on Tagare:
yo ‘nugrahārtha
ṁ
 bhajatā
ṁ
 pāda-mūlam
anāma-rūpo bhagavān ananta
ḥ
nāmāni rūpā
ṇ
i ca janma-karmabhir
bheje sa mahya
ṁ
 parama
ḥ
 prasīdatu ||33||
66 BhP 12.12.62–3.
67 BhP 12.12.47.
68 BhP 1.5.10 trans. based on Tagare:
na yad vacaś citra-pada
ṁ
 harer yaśo jagat-pavitra
ṁ
 prag
ṛṇ
īta karhicit

tad vāyasa

ṁ

tīrtham uśanti mānasā na yatra ha

ṁ

sā niramanty uśik-

ṣ

ayā

ḥ

||9||

69 BhP 11.12.18:

ṇ

ḥ

prajāto havi

ṣ

ā samedhate

tathaiva me vyaktir iya

ṁ

hi vā

ṇ

ī ||18||

70 BhP 1.4.20:

ṛ

g-yaju

ḥ

-sāmātharvākhyā vedāś catvāra uddh

ṛ

tā

ḥ

itihāsa-purā

ṇ

ṁ

ca pañcamo veda ucyate ||20||

71 BhP 1.3.42:

tad ida

ṁ

grāhayām āsa sutam ātmavatā

ṁ

varam

sarva-vedetihāsānā

ṁ

sāra

ṁ

sāra

ṁ

samuddh

ṛ

tam ||42||

72 BhP 1.1.3:

nigama-kalpa-taror galita

ṁ

phala

ṁ

73 BhP 1.3.45, trans. Bhaktivedanta Swami:

ṛṣṇ

e sva-dhāmopagate dharma-jñānādibhi

ḥ

saha

kalau na

ṣṭ

a-d

ṛ

śām e

ṣ

a purā

ṇ

ārko ‘dhunodita

ḥ

||45||

74 BhP 12.6.9–10.

75 BhP 12.12.56.

76 BhP 2.7.53 trans. based on Tagare:

māyā

ṁ

var

ṇ

ayato ‘mu

ṣ

ya īśvarasyānumodata

ḥ

ṛṇ

vata

ḥ

śraddhayā nitya

ṁ

māyayātmā na muhyati ||53||

77 BhP 10.90.50 trans. Bryant:

martyas tayānusavam edhitayā mukunda

śrīmat kathā śrava

ṇ

a kīrtana cintayaiti

tad dhāma dustara k

ṛ

tānta javāpavarga

ṁ

grāmād vana

ṁ

ṣ

iti bhujo ‘pi yayur yad arthā

ḥ

||50||

78 BhP 12.3.52:

ṛ

te yad dhyāyato vi

ṣṇ

ṁ

tretāyā

ṁ

yajato makhai

ḥ

dvāpare paricaryāyā

ṁ

kalau tad dhari-kīrtanāt ||52||

79 BhP 12.3.51 trans based on Tagare:

kaler do

ṣ

a-nidhe rājann asti hy eko mahān gu

ṇ

ḥ

kīrtanād eva k

ṛṣṇ

asya mukta-sa

ṅ

ḥ

para

ṁ

vrajet ||51||

Appendix I

Uses of the Word Māyā in the

Bhāgavata Purāṇa

māyā as

divine

condition

Māyā is

the power

used to

facilitate

God’s play,

līlā, and

reveal his

form and

qualities to

worthy

souls.

1.11.34, 1.13.47, 2.5.21, 2.6.30, 2.8.23, 2.10.45,

3.2.12, 3.3.8, 3.6.39, 3.13.25, 3.18.20, 3.20.8,

3.21.19, 3.24.16, 3.25.1, 3.25.3, 3.26.18, 3.28.32,

4.1.27, 4.7.26, 4.7.37, 4.8.57, 4.9.7, 4.16.2, 4.30.23,

5.4.4, 5.6.7, 5.11.13, 5.18.23, 6.8.13, 6.9.26, 6.9.40,

6.18.8, 7.1.28, 7.2.7, 7.8.46, 7.10.71, 8.3.8, 8.8.37,

8.9.8, 8.18.11, 8.18.24, 8.19.32, 8.24.1, 10.1.7,

10.3.20, 10.3.46, 10.8.43, 10.12.38, 10.13.15,

10.14.21, 10.14.55, 10.15.19, 10.18.2, 10.45.1,

10.45.10, 10.69.19, 10.69.37, 10.69.38, 10.79.33,

10.83.4, 10.83.7, 10.84.16, 10.84.22, 10.84.23,

10.85.20, 10.85.54, 10.86.45, 10.86.48, 10.88.27,

11.5.49, 11.12.23, 11.31.11

māyā as

creation

and

creative

power

Māyā is

the power

that causes

and

constitutes

the world.

1.17.23, 2.4.6, 2.5.18, 2.7.39, 2.8.10, 2.9.27, 2.9.34,

2.10.13, 2.10.35, 3.2.30, 3.5.22, 3.5.25, 3.5.26,

3.5.32, 3.5.34, 3.5.35, 3.6.35, 3.9.1, 3.10.12,

3.13.43, 3.13.45, 3.15.5, 3.21.21, 3.31.13, 4.1.56,

4.3.11, 4.7.39, 4.11.16, 4.12.6, 4.12.15, 4.17.29,

4.17.32, 4.17.36, 4.24.61, 5.4.3, 5.11.6, 5.11.12,

5.13.1, 5.14.1, 5.16.4, 5.18.31, 5.18.37, 5.20.41,

6.3.33, 6.5.16, 6.9.25, 6.9.36, 6.9.42, 6.15.4, 6.16.9,

6.16.54, 6.17.21, 6.19.11, 7.1.6, 7.1.10, 7.2.22,

7.6.23, 7.9.21, 7.9.30, 7.9.36, 8.3.4, 8.5.43, 8.5.44,

8.6.11, 8.12.39, 8.14.10, 8.23.8, 9.8.24, 9.8.25,

9.8.26, 9.9.47, 9.21.15, 10.14.19, 10.27.4, 10.28.6,

10.37.12, 10.38.11, 10.47.30, 10.47.31, 10.49.29,

10.63.38, 10.70.38, 10.73.11, 10.85.13, 10.89.19,

11.3.16, 11.6.8, 11.7.7, 11.7.47, 11.9.16, 11.9.19,

11.11.1, 11.11.3, 11.13.34, 11.18.27, 11.21.43,

11.22.30, 11.24.3, 11.26.2, 11.28.3, 11.28.7,

11.28.27, 11.30.49, 12.4.34, 12.5.6, 12.7.19,

12.10.1, 12.10.41, 12.11.5, 12.11.11

māyā as

human

condition

Māyā is

the power

that crafts

the human

condition

distracting

and

deluding

living

beings in

various

ways.

1.13.55, 2.2.2, 2.5.12, 2.5.19, 2.6.36, 2.7.42, 2.7.47,

2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.3, 2.9.10, 3.2.10, 3.5.38, 3.7.4,

3.7.16, 3.9.9, 3.15.24, 3.21.14, 3.21.20, 3.23.57,

3.30.5, 3.31.15, 3.31.20, 4.6.48, 4.6.49, 4.7.2,

4.7.30, 4.7.31, 4.7.44, 4.9.9, 4.9.33, 4.20.4, 4.20.29,

4.20.31, 4.20.32, 4.23.18, 4.30.33, 5.3.14, 5.6.10,

5.11.15, 5.17.19, 5.17.20, 5.17.24, 5.18.4, 5.19.15,

6.3.15, 6.3.25, 6.4.28, 6.4.53, 6.11.27, 6.12.20,

7.2.47, 7.5.11, 7.9.31, 7.9.43, 7.15.39, 8.2.26,

8.5.30, 8.7.39, 8.12.10, 8.12.35, 8.12.43, 8.16.18,

8.22.28, 9.4.58, 9.6.52, 9.8.23, 9.19.27, 9.21.17,

10.1.42, 10.1.43, 10.2.28, 10.3.39, 10.8.42,

10.12.11, 10.12.39, 10.13.25, 10.14.22, 10.14.44,

10.16.58, 10.23.41, 10.23.50, 10.37.22, 10.37.23,

10.40.23, 10.48.27, 10.51.46, 10.54.43, 10.63.40,

10.70.28, 10.73.10, 10.84.25, 10.85.16, 10.87.14,

10.87.32, 11.2.8, 11.2.37, 11.3.17, 11.3.33, 11.5.18,

11.6.46, 11.7.16, 11.7.17, 11.7.61, 11.7.66, 11.10.13,

11.11.2, 11.13.33, 11.19.1, 11.22.4, 11.29.3,

11.29.39, 11.30.13, 11.30.24, 11.30.38, 12.6.29,

12.6.30, 12.8.48, 12.9.6, 12.10.2

māyā as

power

Māyā’s use

unspecified

or simply

refers to

“power.”

2.7.41, 2.7.43, 2.7.46, 2.9.41, 2.10.30, 3.1.16, 3.7.9,

3.15.26, 3.16.9, 3.16.15, 3.16.37, 3.23.10, 3.25.37,

4.7.51, 4.9.28, 4.11.26, 4.17.31, 5.2.7, 5.6.15,

5.18.17, 5.18.38, 5.26.38, 6.3.17, 6.5.1, 6.7.16,

6.8.32, 6.12.31, 6.18.61, 7.13.43, 7.13.44, 8.12.40,

8.12.42, 8.20.28, 9.20.27, 9.24.58, 10.3.48, 10.3.48,

10.14.9, 10.14.17, 10.14.43, 10.19.14, 10.29.1,

10.39.55, 10.63.26, 10.69.42, 10.70.37, 10.78.34,

10.85.34, 10.85.44, 10.85.48, 10.85.57, 11.6.11,

11.22.28, 11.24.27, 12.8.45, 12.10.10, 12.10.27,

12.10.40, 12.11.24

māyā as

magic

Māyā is

magic,

illusion,

wonder,

and

mystery.

1.15.8, 3.13.48, 3.18.4, 3.18.24, 3.18.25, 3.19.22,

3.19.24, 3.22.34, 3.23.9, 3.27.30, 4.10.21, 4.10.28,

4.10.29, 4.11.2, 4.18.20, 5.24.8, 5.24.9, 5.24.16,

5.24.28, 6.15.23, 7.5.43, 7.10.53, 8.10.45, 8.10.52,

8.10.55, 8.11.4, 8.11.5, 8.11.6, 8.12.21, 8.19.8,

8.21.10, 10.6.4, 10.8.40, 10.12.42, 10.13.41,

10.13.42, 10.13.44, 10.13.45, 10.13.57, 10.14.14,

10.33.37, 10.37.28, 10.55.14, 10.55.16, 10.55.21,

10.55.22, 10.75.37, 10.76.17, 10.76.21, 10.77.10,

10.77.27, 10.77.28, 10.77.36, 10.78.34, 11.2.48,

11.3.1, 11.23.26, 12.9.19, 12.10.30

māyā as

falsehood,

cheating,

trickery

Māyā is

used in the

general

sense of

falsehood,

cheating,

and

trickery.

1.17.32, 2.1.31, 3.1.38, 4.8.2, 4.8.60, 4.17.27,

4.19.38, 4.22.38, 5.24.22, 7.8.23, 7.11.24, 7.13.5,

7.15.43, 9.18.49, 10.14.16, 10.14.18, 10.29.24,

10.49.25, 10.54.25, 10.56.11, 11.3.22, 11.5.34,

11.11.39, 11.17.19, 11.19.7, 11.27.9, 11.27.15,

12.2.3, 12.3.30, 12.3.34, 12.4.25

māyā as

goddess

Māyā is

personified

as a

goddess.

2.3.3, 2.7.47, 2.7.53, 2.7.53, 3.14.29, 6.19.6,

10.1.25, 10.2.6, 10.2.12, 10.2.15, 10.3.47, 10.4.13,

10.4.29, 10.22.4, 10.53.51, 10.55.6

māyā as

woman

Māyā is

identified

with

women.

3.30.8, 3.31.37, 5.14.28, 6.2.37, 6.18.39, 8.12.30,

8.12.38, 9.19.12, 9.20.9, 11.8.7, 11.8.8

Appendix II

Uses of the Word Māyā as a

Compound in the Bhāgavata

Purā

ṇ

Compound Meaning References

māyā-

mātram simply māyā

1.3.30, 1.8.19, 2.7.47, 6.16.54,

7.13.5, 11.19.1, 11.21.43,

11.26.2, 12.4.25

māyā-mohita enchanted by māyā 1.7.24, 10.13.42, 10.14.44,

10.23.51,

māyā-gu

ṇ

aqualities of nature

1.13.56, 3.33.24 25, 3.5.25,

3.5.35, 3.13.45 4.1.26 27,

4.20.29, 5.16.4, 5.18.34,

6.3.33, 9.6.52,9.8.23, 9.8.24,

11.24.3

māyā-maya consisting of māyā

2.2.2, 3.13.25, 4.7.31, 4.23.18,

5.18.17, 5.24.22, 6.9.36,

7.9.36, 10.27.4, 10.76.21,

11.7.7, 11.12.22-23, 11.24.27,

12.4.34, 12.7.19, 12.8.45

ātma-

māyā/sva-

māyā/man-

māyā

his/my own māyā

2.6.36, 5.26.38, 6.16.9, 7.1.6,

9.8.25, 11.5.18, 11.14.9,

11.30.49, 12.10.30

māyā-bala strength of māyā 2.7.41, 3.9.9, 8.16.18,

Māyeśa lord of māyā 2.8.10, 8.11.4

māyā-kirāta/-

gām/

-va

ṭ

u/-

manuja/

-n

ṛ

ṁ

ha/-

ṣ

itā/

mā

ṇ

avakam/-

matsya/-

arbhaka

illusory

hunter/cow/dwarf/human/half

man half

lion/woman/son/fish/boy

3.1.38, 3.18.20, 4.17.27,

6.8.13, 7.8.46, 8.9.8, 8.18.24

25, 8.24.59, 10.1.4, 10.13.15

Compound Meaning References

yoga-māyā māyā produced from yoga

3.2.12, 5.6.7, 8.5.43, 3.5.22,

3.2.12, 3.15.26, 3.16.9,

3.19.17, 3.23.10, 6.12.31,

10.19.14, 10.69.37, 10.69.42,

10.83.4

deva-māyā god’s māyā 3.30.5, 3.31.20, 4.7.2, 5.6.10,

7.15.38 39, 10.8.40,

devi-māyā goddess’s māyā 1.3.34

māyā-

viracita/-

ṣṭ

ita

arranged or created by māyā 3.31.48, 9.19.26, 9.24.58,

māyādhipati master of māyā 6.3.17

māyā-racita created by māyā 5.11.6, 5.11.12, 8.5.44,

10.1.42,10.1.43, 11.28.27

ṣṇ

u-māyā Viṣṇu’s māyā 6.5.1, 10.1.25, 12.9.19

divya-māyā divine māyā 6.9.34

māyā-śakti māyā power 6.19.11

māyā-yoga connected with māyā 7.2.47

māyā-sukha illusory happiness 7.9.43

īśa-māyā māyā of the Lord 9.9.47

svapna-māyā māyā like dream 9.18.49

māyāśrita resorted to māyā 10.12.11

māyāśayā bed of māyā 10.13.41

māyā-

damana subduer of māyā 10.14.16

māyāvin possessor of māyā, magician

3.18.24, 4.9.28, 5.24.9,

5.24.16, 5.24.28, 10.77.10,

10.77.27

mahā-māyā great māyā 12.6.29

ṛṣṇ

a-māyā Kṛṣṇa’s māyā 11.30.13, 11.30.24

Appendix III

Some Occurrences of Yoga-māyā in

the Bhāgavata Purāṇa

Verse Text Meaning in Context

2.7.43 paramasya hi

yoga-māyā

ṁ

illusory power of Bhagavān (described as

dustarā

ṁ

deva-māyām “divine power difficult to

surmount in the previous verse)

3.6.35 yoga-māyā-

balodayam Viṣṇu’s creative power

3.13.45

(also

5.6.7)

yad-yoga-

māyā-gu

ṇ

yoga-mohita

ṁ

bewildering power

3.16.15 te yoga-

māyayārabdha

power by which Viṣṇu reveals his form to the

Kumāras

3.16.37

yogeśvarair api

duratyaya-

yoga-māya

ḥ

the Lord’s power, inscrutable even to the masters

of yoga

3.18.4 yoga-māyā-

balam

mystic power used by Varāha in battle to kill his

enemies

3.21.19 adhi-yoga-

māyayā

the power that Bhagavān uses to create the

universes, just as a spider uses its power to

weave a web

3.22.34 ni

ṣṇ

āta

ṁ

yoga-māyāsu mystic powers of Svāyambhuva Manu

6.12.31 yoga-māyā-

balena ca mystic power of Indra

8.5.43 yad-yoga-

māyā-vihitān

energy that arranges the material elements (earth,

air, fire, etc.), time, karma, and the three gu

ṇ

into their particular forms

Verse Text Meaning in Context

10.69.37

(also

10.83.4)

yoga-

māyodaya

ṁ

vīk

ṣ

Kṛṣṇa’s power (seen by Nārada) to assume

many forms

Appendix IV

All the Instances of Māyā in the

Bhāgavata Purāṇa

This appendix provides a table of all the references of māyā in the

Bhāgavata. The first column of the table lists the verse number, the second

provides the verse, the third gives a partial translation of the verse, and

finally the fourth identifies how the term māyā is used in that verse. For an

explanation of the various uses of māyā in the Bhāgavata, please refer to

Chapter 1.

Table_Image